Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Housing, Communities and Local Government

The Secretary of State was asked—

Affordable Homes to Buy

Dr Caroline Johnson: What steps he is taking to increase the number of affordable homes available to buy.

Robert Jenrick: This Government are making sure that hard-working families and first-time buyers have affordable, quality homes to call their own. Last month, we confirmed over £12 billion of investment to build more affordable homes—the most significant of its kind in living memory. This includes our new affordable homes programme, which will deliver up to 180,000 homes from next year.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. My constituents are keen to see villages grow gently, sympathetically and with a range of larger and more affordable homes, and I am pleased to hear him focus on quality. How will my right hon. Friend’s planning reforms focus on quality and ensure that no new three-storey, densely packed, large developments of identikit houses are allowed to ruin the edges of small villages?

Robert Jenrick: Like my hon. Friend, this Government believe that beautiful high-quality homes should be the norm in every area of this country. Our reformed planning system will place a much higher regard on quality, design and local character, such as that in Lincolnshire, than ever before. Local planning authorities already have the power to set high standards for housing, including setting parameters for density, open space and private gardens. However, to go further, I have announced that we will create a new national design code, and I have asked Nicholas Boys Smith, the founder of Create Streets, to establish a new body to help every local community to create their own design code and deliver locally popular architecture for everyone.

Local Authorities: Funding

Tony Lloyd: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of Government funding for local authorities.

Luke Hall: We said we would support councils throughout this pandemic, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have provided £4.8 billion in additional funding for spending pressures, including £3.7 billion of un-ringfenced funding. This is in addition to councils’ core spending power rising by over £2.9 billion this financial year, which is the largest year-on-year real-terms increase in a decade.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister will know that Rochdale council has lost some £200 million in Government cuts over the last years, and this year it is likely to be £20 million short of money, even with the extra Government funding. The people who will suffer most from this are those dependent on acute services, children’s services and, of course, the elderly and the vulnerable. How does the Minister intend to make sure that they do not suffer?

Luke Hall: The hon. Gentleman of course knows that this year’s local government finance settlement saw Rochdale Borough Council receive an increase of £12 million this year, which he did not object to when the finance settlement came through the House in February. More widely, throughout this pandemic we have supported Rochdale with £93 million to local councils, businesses and the local area. If Rochdale council is concerned about its financial settlements or about the financial situation, it should get in contact with my Department at the earliest opportunity. I would say that over half of the £4.8 billion allocated to local authorities has been spent on social care, but I am always happy to discuss it with him further.

Steve Reed: Councils are facing in-year cuts of around £3 billion because the Secretary of State broke his promise to fully fund councils for the cost of getting communities through the pandemic, and that is according to the Conservative-led Local Government Association. The Minister tries to wish this away by bandying around Government funding intended for specific purposes that cannot be used to plug gaps in the council’s general funds. Since he would not wish to try to pull that same trick again here, would he tell the House which services he now expects councils to cut to plug the funding gap created by his broken promises?

Luke Hall: Let us step back and look at the facts here. If we look at the local government finance settlement—the hon. Gentleman did not object to it in February; he supported it—and at the fact that local government has reported a £3.1 billion increase in spending pressures for covid, we have supported them with £4.8 billion, including £3.7 billion of un-ringfenced funding. What is not surprising is the hon. Gentleman turning up again today and talking down councils and their ability to respond to this crisis. Local authorities are proving themselves to be a resourceful, dynamic force, and we should be praising them.

Clive Betts: Could I say that the Government’s decision to help councils with loss of funding, particularly for leisure centres, parking revenue and such things, is welcome? There is one group of authorities, however, that have not been compensated—the councils that run their leisure services at arm’s length. I raised this with the Minister’s predecessor back in July, and the response I got was that the Government
“are very serious about tackling it.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1224.]
Since then, because Sheffield has lost over £10 million, which it has not been compensated for, from its leisure centres’ loss of income, we have written as Sheffield MPs to the Secretary of State twice—once in August and once in September, the second with the local leisure clubs—and we have not had a response. Could the Minister therefore update the House on what is happening in general on this issue, and will he agree to meet Sheffield MPs to discuss this issue, which really affects our city and its finances?

Luke Hall: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. We recognise the vital role leisure centre facilities play in keeping our communities safe and protecting mental health. We are working closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on a further package of support for leisure centres. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other Sheffield MPs to discuss the matter.

Brownfield Sites: Development

Gagan Mohindra: What steps he is taking to support development on brownfield sites.

Robert Jenrick: Delivering much needed new, higher-quality greener homes across the country is central to the mission of this Government. To do that, we will continue to prioritise building on brownfield sites to deliver the homes that we need while also regenerating our towns and cities. As a first step, we have allocated more than £400 million from our brownfield fund to seven mayoral combined authorities, unlocking 26,000 new homes while protecting our greenfield sites. Even as we overhaul our outdated planning system, our reforms make very clear that we will continue to protect the green belt and prioritise development on brownfield land.

Gagan Mohindra: As my right hon. Friend knows, my beautiful constituency of South West Hertfordshire is 80% green belt. Does he agree that continued protection of the green belt and prioritising building on brownfield sites is the right thing to do?

Robert Jenrick: I am very happy to assure my hon. Friend once again that the protection of the green belt remains a priority, as does developing brownfield land in all parts of the country, including Hertfordshire. We do need to build more homes, including in places where homes are most expensive. It is, and will continue to be, however, for local councils to decide which sites are available, and which sites are viable and suitable for new homes. That will involve reimagining high streets and it  will involve promoting gentle density, but we will do everything we can to protect both the green belt and our beautiful countryside.

Places of Worship: Covid-19

Afzal Khan: What steps his Department has taken to help places of worship open safely during the covid-19 outbreak.

John Spellar: What steps his Department has taken to help places of worship open safely during the covid-19 outbreak.

Robert Jenrick: As Communities Secretary, ensuring places of worship can reopen and remain open has been a priority for me and my Department. Their contribution to our country as places of solace, as well as for significant moments such as weddings and funerals, is clear to us all. Places of worship remain open today for more than six people for communal prayer and services with existing covid-secure requirements continuing to apply.

Afzal Khan: During this pandemic we have seen a sharp spike in Islamophobia, from blaming Muslims for the spread of covid-19 to fuelling online hate. I am sure the Secretary of State will want to join me in commending the community for its patience and hard work in these difficult months. Given that the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has previously highlighted the good work of the Muslim Council of Britain in reaching minority groups that the Government are unable or unwilling to reach, can he outline what discussions he has had with the MCB and other Muslim organisations on the safe reopening of mosques?

Robert Jenrick: Like the hon. Gentleman, I want to praise and thank the Muslim communities throughout the country for their forbearance. We have worked closely with them through our places of worship taskforce that the Prime Minister and I set up. I have had the privilege to meet representatives from mosques, including the London Central Mosque on the eve of the Eid celebrations, to thank them once again for their forbearance. We have put in place detailed guidelines to help mosques to reopen safely and will continue to work with Muslim groups in the weeks and months ahead.

John Spellar: It is clear from what the Secretary of State has said that he recognises that in these troubled times places of worship are more important than ever in providing for the spiritual and material needs of their congregations and in combating loneliness and mental health problems. However, they face their own challenges in making their premises safe for their worshippers and meeting the costs of that as well as for their own people. What help is the Department giving directly to places of worship to facilitate that provision, and is it engaging with them regularly to ensure that this can be effectively implemented?

Robert Jenrick: The right hon. Gentleman makes a series of very important points. At the start of the pandemic, I recognised that places of worship needed to be prioritised. They should not be relegated behind  other activities, whether shops, casinos or other important things that we want to keep open to protect people’s livelihoods. Places of worship matter for those with faith, and we needed to ensure that they could reopen. I worked extremely closely with faith leaders through our places of worship taskforce. That work continues, and we have very good relationships with all the major faiths. The guidelines are in place and are now extremely detailed. They cover not only basic guidelines for all faiths, but very detailed guidelines for individual practices for particular religions. We saw that prominently recently, for example, with the Jewish holidays, when we worked out detailed guidelines for Yom Kippur. We will continue to work closely with faith leaders in the weeks and months ahead.

Janet Daby: Since reopening, mosques have incurred the cost of PPE, which is an additional financial cost to them, along with deep cleaning several times a day after members and visitors visit. The Muslim Council of Britain estimates that it has already given out £500,000 in small grants, but there are far more mosques in need than those funds can reach. What action is the Secretary of State taking to financially support places of worship to reopen in a covid-secure way?

Robert Jenrick: Alongside other charities, places of worship are able to apply to the £200 million coronavirus community support fund, which has helped organisations providing essential services for vulnerable people affected by the current crisis.

Planning System: Design and Beauty

Gary Sambrook: What steps he is taking to ensure that design and beauty are prioritised in the planning system.

Christopher Pincher: With our planning White Paper “Planning for the future”, we are seeking views on proposals to achieve just what my hon. Friend refers to in his question. We are putting the creation of beautiful places at the heart of national planning policy, encouraging greater use of design codes based on what people want to see in their area, supporting local authorities and directing Homes England to help deliver that.

Gary Sambrook: Under the White Paper, Bournville, an area that I am lucky enough to part-represent, was used as an example of an area of beauty. George Cadbury in 1893 had his vision of building houses for the area. Today, there are 25,000 people across 8,000 homes in Bournville. Will the Minister please accept an invite from the Bournville Village Trust to come and see the area for himself and the excellent work it is doing to maintain that beautiful community?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that question and for that invitation to his constituency, being as it is just a hop, skip and a jump from my constituency of Tamworth. George Cadbury certainly had a vision for his community. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend and his friends in Bournville village to realise their modern 21st-century vision for his constituents.

Rough Sleepers: Covid-19

Angela Richardson: What steps he is taking to support rough sleepers during the covid-19 outbreak.

Kelly Tolhurst: Since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, nearly 15,000 vulnerable people have been housed in emergency accommodation thanks to the hard work of local councils and charities, saving hundreds of lives. We are now moving on to the next steps through our Next Steps Accommodation programme. We have recently announced over £90 million for local authorities in England to prevent those we have accommodated from returning to the streets.

Angela Richardson: May I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to her new role on the Front Bench? This Government’s commitment to end rough sleeping is clear to see in the extensive and regular funding given to councils over the past year. I commend David Newbery, senior homelessness prevention officer at Guildford Borough Council, who successfully found appropriate accommodation for a victim of domestic violence I had spoken to on a Saturday morning by that very evening—there was the additional complication of a positive covid status—so that she did not have to spend another night unwell and fearful. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the commitment of those on the ground in Guildford, who are working tirelessly in partnership with central Government to end rough sleeping?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the tremendous work of those in her constituency. I join with her in paying tribute to those, not only in her constituency but across the country, who worked so hard with the Government to end rough sleeping and on the delivery of the significant programme of accommodating nearly 15,000 people during covid-19. We are committed to protecting victims of domestic abuse, investing over £80 million since 2014. Today, a new £6 million fund will help tier 1 councils to prepare for the implementation of the new legal duty in the Domestic Abuse Bill.

David Linden: The coronavirus pandemic and the Government’s actions during it have shown that homelessness is a choice—not of the homeless themselves, but of the Government. Will this Tory Government choose to permit the existence of homelessness, or will they extend their actions during the pandemic to eradicate the problem once and for all?

Kelly Tolhurst: The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government are committed to working hard to end rough sleeping by the end of the Parliament. That is clear in the investment the Government have made, particularly during the pandemic and, as I have just outlined in my previous response, with the Next Steps Accommodation Programme. We are committed to making sure that during the pandemic all individuals who were accommodated are supported, so they can move forward and have great lives, and we keep many individuals off the streets.

Local Authorities: Additional Funding for Covid-19

George Howarth: What steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding for additional costs related to the covid-19 outbreak.

Luke Hall: We have provided local authorities with an unprecedented package of support, including £4.8 billion funding for spending pressures, £3.7 billion in un-ring-fenced grants, and £1.1 billion for the infection control fund. We have also introduced a co-payment scheme to help councils recoup irrecoverable losses in sales fees and charges. In total, we have committed over £28 billion to local areas to support councils, businesses and their communities since the start of the pandemic.

George Howarth: All of which is welcome, but last week the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority called for a comprehensive Government-backed package to deal with the problems for the local economy that will be caused by the introduction of the latest covid-19 measures. Today, the combined authority and the Metro Mayor announced a £40 million welcome package to support local businesses and jobs. Will the Minister agree to hold an urgent meeting with local MPs, the combined authority and the Metro Mayor to discuss what further assistance the Government can provide to support our local economy?

Luke Hall: The right hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that Knowsley has received £30 million in additional un-ring-fenced spending to deal with pressures resulting from the pandemic, on top of the £10 million increase in its core spending power this financial year. More widely, Knowsley received £51 million to support councils, businesses and the community. He will be interested to know that to prepare for local outbreaks we have provided a £300 million grant to all upper tier authorities to develop strong and effective local outbreak plans. In relation to ongoing engagement, I met the Mayor of Greater Manchester last week and I believe he is meeting the Secretary of State tomorrow. We are, of course, happy to continue those discussions.

Future Homes Standard

Sarah Olney: For what reasons he plans to introduce the future homes standard in 2025.

Christopher Pincher: Our future homes standard reforms propose an ambitious uplift in the energy efficiency of new homes. The homes will have at least 75% lower emissions than current standards. That is real action toward a cleaner and greener built environment. Furthermore, ahead of 2025, we have consulted on a meaningful interim increase in the requirements of part L of the building regulations, which will act as a stepping stone to a full uplift.

Sarah Olney: If I cannot persuade the Minister to be more ambitious in his deadline, perhaps I could encourage him to use the time to be more ambitious in his target. Instead of a target of reducing carbon emissions  by 75%, will the Government set a target of net zero carbon for new builds?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. She seems to have forgotten the ambition of this Government, which has already been stated. We were the first Government in the world to legislate for net zero. She seems to have forgotten that just a few days ago, we introduced the green homes grant; 600,000 homes will benefit from that grant. She seems to have forgotten the work we have done to drive down poor energy performance certificate standards; now only 5% of homes are in the G category. We will certainly be ambitious. We will continue to work hard to build green homes for our country, and I am sure that when it comes to it and the hon. Lady stops talking, she will start to walk with us.

High Street Businesses: Covid-19

Chris Green: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support high street businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Mark Menzies: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support high street businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Robert Jenrick: Revitalising our towns and high streets is vital to the Government’s effort to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, supporting people’s jobs and getting businesses trading again. Last month, we provided an £80 million boost to over 100 towns from our £3.6 billion towns fund, kickstarting important local investment projects.

Chris Green: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I also thank the Government for deciding to ease the lockdown on Bolton so that people can start using cafés, pubs and restaurants more normally. This has also had the benefit of bringing more people on to our high streets and increasing footfall. As a further step, will he consider having 10 pm as last orders to enable a safe exit from pubs and restaurants as people leave and perhaps use public transport?

Robert Jenrick: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The requirement for pubs and some other businesses to be closed to the general public by 10 pm was designed to strike the balance of allowing people to continue to socialise while reducing social contact and minimising negative impacts on the economy. He will know that we do not take these decisions lightly. None of us would want that to continue a day longer than is necessary, and as with all measures, we will keep them under constant review.

Chris Bryant: Tomorrow.

Lindsay Hoyle: It is actually Mark Menzies now.

Mark Menzies: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many business owners in Fylde and their employees have found themselves on the frontline of enforcing social distancing guidelines in recent months. What is the Minister doing to support those businesses, as well as local authorities, to ensure that high streets remain safe and public confidence high?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we published the safer urban centres and green spaces guidance to provide exactly that kind of information to business owners and councils. We have supported that with a £50 million reopening high streets safely fund and, more recently, with £60 million for the police and local councils to provide enforcement and compliance. This comes on top of our cuts to the taxes of local businesses through the business rates holiday, the 5% cut in VAT, and the reforms that we have taken through to help small businesses, whether that is on use class orders, outdoor dining and markets, or creating a simpler route through the planning system for regeneration—all measures designed to support businesses and protect jobs, and all opposed by the Labour party.

English Devolution and Local Recovery: White Paper

Dan Jarvis: When he plans to publish the White Paper on English devolution and local recovery.

Luke Hall: The Government intend to bring forward the English devolution and local recovery White Paper in due course, setting out how we will partner with places across the UK to build a sustainable economic recovery. I was very pleased to see that the parliamentary order to implement the Sheffield city region deal in law was made in July, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all his work and support in finally reaching that significant milestone in his work so far as Mayor.

Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He will know that devolution has the power to transform people’s lives and local economies, but as a Mayor, it too often feels like I do not yet have the powers and resources to make transformative changes. The White Paper represents a golden opportunity to reset the dial, so does he agree that to properly empower local and regional leaders, the Government should commit to place-based, multi-year, flexible budgets so that we can better deliver for our communities?

Luke Hall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I was delighted to meet him and nine colleagues from across the country to discuss their representations about the upcoming White Paper. We are genuinely pleased with the combined authority Mayors and the progress that they are making, but of course, we recognise that there is more to do. We will publish the White Paper in due course.

Kate Hollern: In the 2019 Conservative manifesto, the Government promised that every part of the country would have the powers to shape their own destiny. Given the broken promises that councils have had from the Government recently, can the Minister confirm that the White Paper honours that manifesto pledge, and that local leaders will have the powers to decide what works best for their communities?

Luke Hall: I am not exactly sure what promise the hon. Lady was referring to, but we have certainly kept our promises to protect councils during this pandemic by providing them with billions of pounds of funding to support their covid response. We see the devolution  and local recovery White Paper as an exciting opportunity to lay out our plans for devolution in this Parliament. We will bring it forward in due course, and I am very happy to listen to her representations about what should be in it.

Agricultural Land: Development

Roger Gale: What steps he is taking to ensure that high-quality agricultural land is not used for housing developments.

Christopher Pincher: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already alluded, in his answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), to the £400 million brownfield fund, delivering 26,000 homes, and our commitment to prioritising brownfield sites does not end there. Our national planning policy framework is clear that brownfield should be prioritised for redevelopment for housing, and that local authorities should avoid using our best and most versatile farmland wherever and whenever possible.

Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend knows that I have a high regard for him personally, but I am afraid that that does not extend to a planning White Paper that seems designed to smother the south-east of England and the garden of England in houses not for local people but for people from elsewhere. In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), the Secretary of State said that the brownfield fund would be made available to metropolitan areas. Will that be extended across the board to rural areas as well? Also, could my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that all of the 1 million consents already granted will be used before a single further blade of greenfield site in agricultural land is also used?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his question. I can confirm that, though he is correct that the £400 million made available for the brownfield regeneration fund was targeted at mayoral combined authorities, the home building fund has in it £5 billion to support new housing, including brownfield projects. More than 300 projects in England will receive a share of the £900 million to get Britain building: the getting building fund. That will also, I trust, support his constituency. I also remind him that just a couple of days ago we voted for permitted development rights, which will allow for the reimagining of town centres, and the demolition and rebuild of disused commercial buildings. That will also take the weight off any pressure on green spaces, so the Government are committed to the end that my right hon. Friend wants: building brownfield first.

Dangerous Cladding: Residential Buildings

Paul Blomfield: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that dangerous cladding is removed from residential buildings of all heights.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that dangerous cladding is removed from residential buildings of all heights.

Sam Tarry: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that dangerous cladding is removed from residential buildings of all heights.

Christopher Pincher: We are taking action with the biggest reforms of building and fire safety in nearly 40 years through the Building Safety Bill. To tackle the most urgent problems, we have already made available £1.6 billion to remove unsafe cladding systems, and appointed expert construction consultants to review aluminium composite material remediation timescales and to work at increased pace. There therefore should be no excuse for delay.

Paul Blomfield: There should indeed be no excuse for delay, but a constituent of mine tells me that she and her partner are stuck between a rock and a hard place because they cannot sell their flat. Up to half a million people are now in the same position. The Minister will know that whether buildings are above 18 metres or, as in the case of my constituent, below that height, mortgage lenders are requiring EWS1 forms for fire safety clearance. My constituent’s management company refuses to test her building because it is below 18 metres. The Select Committee called for urgent action in June, so what is the Minister doing to help all those who are trapped by the failure of remediation and by these requirements?

Christopher Pincher: With respect to buildings below 18 metres, we are following the advice of Dame Judith Hackitt to target the tallest buildings—those over 18 metres—because they are at greatest danger of fire if they are clad. With respect to the EWS1 form—a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors form—I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had discussions with lenders and that my noble Friend the noble Lord Greenhalgh has discussed with the insurance industry how to resolve these matters better. We are encouraging the industry to accept alternative evidence of assurances. Not all lenders require EWS1 forms, and we will encourage more lenders to take similar action.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Countless Salford residents are among over 700,000 nationally who are still living in dangerously cladded homes, yet only 65 registrations to the building safety fund have been allowed to proceed, an estimated 1.5 million people cannot sell their homes, and exorbitant remediation costs are still being passed on to leaseholders for defects that they did not cause. Will the Minister end this protracted scandal today and commit to the proposals set out by the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee?

Christopher Pincher: I have every sympathy with the situation that the hon. Lady’s constituents find themselves in. She will understand that in order to target the right buildings and ensure that the buildings most at risk are prioritised, it is important that the money disbursed by the Government is spent effectively. We have had 2,784 registrations to the end of September, and 1,857 of those—many of them received on the last day of application in July—were incomplete. We are working with the owners and with the submitters of the registrations to ensure that they get the information right, and as soon as they get the information right, we can determine when we can get the money out of the door. I hope that we get the first money out of the door very soon indeed.

Sam Tarry: According to leading civil servants, the building safety fund will cover less than a third of the buildings that require external remediation, and it does not even cover the interim safety measures and costs that may unscrupulous freeholders have been pushing on to leaseholders, including at Raphael House in my constituency. My constituents and I are wondering whether the Government could increase the budget for that fund so that all buildings are covered, including the cost of the expensive interim safety measures, and extend the application deadline beyond April so that freeholders can act responsibly in the best interests of leaseholders and tenants.

Christopher Pincher: The objective of the £1 billion fund is to target those properties that most need help, where there is no other immediate means of helping them. £1 billion is not a small amount of money and it is important that we get that money out of the door first to help those places that need it. The hon. Gentleman might, while he is at it, have a word with the Mayor of London, because London is lagging well behind the remediation of properties around England. That is why Lord Greenhalgh had to organise a London summit to get London to up its game. So, as much as we are determined to get the money out of the door, he must encourage the Mayor to do the same.

Mike Amesbury: Ritu and Rebecca are among the many thousands of people now trapped in this situation despite their good intentions. Hon. Members across the House have discussed the EWS1 form today. The current estimate for the 1.5 million people stuck in this situation is that it will take 15 years-plus to resolve. This requires a sense of urgency. When the Minister going to get a grip of the situation?

Christopher Pincher: As I explained to the House just a moment ago—I think the hon. Gentleman heard what I said— the Government are working with lenders to make sure that this situation moves as quickly as possible, so that lenders require other more easily available assurances and are encouraged to act much more quickly. We continue to work with the industry to make sure that those people get the help and support they need, and I can confirm to him that we will bring forward further proposals very soon.

Regeneration: Town Centres

Sheryll Murray: What steps he is taking to support regeneration in town centres.

Marco Longhi: What steps he is taking to support regeneration in town centres.

Kelly Tolhurst: We are committed to supporting regeneration in town centres through the £3.6 billion towns fund, which includes the £1 billion future high streets fund. Last week, we made an announcement on £80 million from the towns fund, which will go to more than 100 towns in England, to kick-start regeneration projects. We are also providing support to local leaders through the High Streets Task Force and have protected businesses from eviction during the covid pandemic.

Sheryll Murray: My constituency office is in Liskeard, a small market town that is more than 1,000 years old. It lost the head office of the local district council when that authority was abolished and its farmers’ market has left the town. What more can be done to increase demand again in small town centres such as Liskeard?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the beauty of her town of Liskeard, and she knows that I, too, am a fan of her part of the country. The Government are totally committed to helping our high streets and town centres to adapt to changing consumer behaviour during this challenging period. To achieve that, the Government are supporting places across the country with the High Streets Task Force, which will work with local authorities and groups to get the access to the experts required to come up with the ideas and drive to build the skills for sustainable place making and share that best practice. We have also introduced reforms to planning use to enable that mixture on the high streets to drive footfall and businesses into our town centres.

Marco Longhi: High streets such as mine in Dudley have undergone a period of profound change—they did so even before the pandemic struck—so does the Minister agree that making it easier to convert commercial and retail units into new homes will help regenerate the high street and create more housing?

Kelly Tolhurst: My hon. Friend is right. We agree that turning disused commercial and retail units into new homes can provide more housing, and create more vibrant town and city centres. A number of national permitted development rights allow for shops, offices and high streets to change to residential use, which will have the impact of creating environments where people want to live, work—[Interruption.] And play.

Steve Reed: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for letting me stand in for my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who has not been able to get here, and I hope that the Minister will not be lost for words with this one. The Secretary of State has been criticised for the way he allocated taxpayers’ money through the towns fund. He will share my concern that there must never be any question of gerrymandering public funds, so will he explain why he ignored civil servants on how the towns fund should be spent, and blocked funds for Sunderland, Stockport and Ashington but handed out money to wealthier towns with more prosperous high streets, such as Newark, which he just happens to represent?

Kelly Tolhurst: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have had a lot of respect for him in his previous work in this House, but I am disappointed with his position there. As an elected Member of Parliament, I am totally committed, like this Government, to driving up regeneration across the country, in no matter what part of the United Kingdom. Suggesting that there was anything underhand in relation to that towns fund is totally out of order. I can tell him that that fund has been allocated to towns up and down the country. They are dying for that regeneration and people want to see their towns developed, and we are committed to continuing to deliver on the promises we have made.

Overdevelopment: London and the South-East

Theresa Villiers: What steps he is taking to prevent overdevelopment in London and the South East.

Christopher Pincher: We are committed to delivering the homes and communities that this country needs, while protecting our important green spaces and avoiding overdevelopment anywhere in the country. Our consultation sets out the elements that we intend to balance when determining local housing need, including building 300,000 homes, tackling affordability challenges in the places where people most want to live, and levelling up our towns and cities. The consultation recently closed and we are reflecting carefully on the feedback.

Theresa Villiers: In March, the Secretary of State wrote a strongly worded letter to the Mayor of London to express concern that his London plan tilts away from family homes towards one-bedroom flats. How does the Secretary of State reconcile the inconsistency between that letter and his new housing algorithm, which will generate such high targets that they are unachievable without tower blocks full of predominantly one-bedroom flats?

Christopher Pincher: As I said, we will reflect carefully on the feedback that we receive from the consultation on calculating local housing need. My right hon. Friend refers to the desire to protect quiet neighbourhoods and ensure that they are not overborne by tall tower blocks. I am keen to make sure that local authorities are at the heart of decision making, and we will make sure that that is a fundamental part of our response to the consultation. I reassure my right hon. Friend, who is a doughty campaigner for the fine borough of Barnet, which builds lots of homes, that we will bring forward proposals to achieve the sorts of ends that she is looking for.

Topical Questions

Antony Higginbotham: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Robert Jenrick: Our town centres and high streets are the beating heart of our communities. Our landmark towns fund, through which we are investing £3.6 billion into more than 100 towns, is just one part of that commitment. We also want to give local communities the freedom to transform their areas for the better—to give boarded-up eyesores on the high street a new lease of life, to give shop owners the flexibility to change the use of their property, and to allow families the chance to increase the size of their home as their family grows. Each of these reforms will help small businesses and individuals to sustain jobs and invest in local communities. That is the mission of this Government.

Antony Higginbotham: This year marks 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. It vital that we remember what happened so that we can learn the lessons of the past, so will my right hon. Friend reassure me and the House that the Government remain committed to delivering a national holocaust memorial?

Robert Jenrick: I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has expressed his support for the national holocaust memorial. I hope that now is the moment for Members from all parties in this House and, indeed, in the other place to unite behind the proposal and ensure that the memorial is built as soon as possible.

Thangam Debbonaire: With millions of people living in homes that are cold, damp and expensive to heat, in the midst of a respiratory illness pandemic, with millions more looking to the Government to give hope for the good jobs of the future, and with a climate change crisis as well, what part of cancelling Labour’s zero-carbon homes standard does the Secretary of State think was a good idea? When will he commit his Government to returning to a zero-carbon—not low-carbon but zero-carbon—homes standard?

Robert Jenrick: As we have set out time and again, we are committed to net-zero homes—we do not want to see any new home built in this country that needs expensive retrofitting in future. If anyone thinks that the Labour party is going to deliver that or indeed any other strategy for homes in this country, they will be “sorely disappointed”—those are the words of The Guardian, not myself. The hon. Lady said that it would be years before she was able to bring forward any plans for housing whatsoever. What a sad indictment of the Labour party—the party of Herbert Morrison and Clement Attlee. We are planning to build a million new homes in this country; the Labour party’s plans are as empty and vacuous as a Wendy house blown over in the first gust of autumn wind.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just say that the questions are pretty short and the answers are meant to be pretty short as well? I say to the Secretary of State that I am going to run the whole list of questions.

Gary Sambrook: The Government are absolutely right in their commitment to building more homes, but we also need to look after the ones that we have. I am especially thinking of those predominately council estates that were built in the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s, with many homes falling into a state of disrepair. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking at ways in which we can regenerate those estates and build back better?

Robert Jenrick: I will. I would like to see further investment in estates regeneration of the kind that my hon. Friend describes, and he will know that my hon. Friend the Chancellor recently announced £2 billion for the green homes grants to improve homes across the country.

David Linden: Scotland has had more structural rules on cladding than the rest of the UK for several years now and has different tenancy forums from England, so does the Secretary of State have any idea of the potential consequences of the internal market Bill on Scottish housing regulations and building standards, including those on cladding?

Robert Jenrick: I work closely with the devolved Administrations on housing matters, and I am open to any representation from the Housing Minister in Scotland. As far as I am aware, we have had no representation whatsoever.

Kieran Mullan: In Crewe and Nantwich, we have seen recently another example of planning permission being given for a housing development without sufficient consideration of the impact on the local NHS, which really causes concern among my residents, especially as the development went against both the neighbourhood plan and the local plan. What more can we do to ensure that the impact on NHS services is more consistently taken into account in planning decisions?

Robert Jenrick: The decision to which my hon. Friend refers is now being challenged in court, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment while those proceedings are live. None the less, he makes an extremely important point that people across the country want to see infrastructure flowing with new housing, whether that be hospitals, GP surgeries or schools. I would highlight that, in our planning reforms, our new infrastructure levy will drive more investment in infrastructure—both social infrastructure and physical infrastructure—in the years to come.

Dan Jarvis: The current top-down centralised response to covid is not working anywhere near as well as it needs to. Properly integrating council leaders and metro Mayors into the decision-making process will help protect lives and livelihoods. May I ask the Minister or the Secretary of State to ensure that, together, we work to achieve properly joined-up Government and that local and regional leaders are treated like partners and not passengers? [R]

Luke Hall: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course we are in regular contact with the M9 group of Mayors about the covid-19 response and indeed, as I have said, we have meetings with him and colleagues tomorrow with the Secretary of State. Metro Mayors do occasionally attend Cobra meetings where it is appropriate. In relation to the pandemic, it is particularly important that we recognise the crucial working relationship with Public Health England and the fact that we are led by the chief medical officer. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the importance of close working with metro Mayors up and down the country is absolutely vital.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend knows that I have previously raised this issue about ensuring that new build homes meet the required standard. Sadly, my own constituency has had cases of residents moving into new properties with considerable issues on the moving date, such as, for example, a flooded kitchen. Such situations are unacceptable, and we need to see every home built to high standards now and also fit for the future in environmental standards and connectivity. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the new homes ombudsman service will hit the ground running and protect residents purchasing new build homes?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that too many homes have been built in this country to poor standards in the recent past. That is why we are now legislating for the new homes ombudsman, and we are already taking action by working with the New Homes Quality Board to raise standards. We will also respond in due course to the Law Commission’s important reports, with which we intend to right the wrongs of leasehold as quickly as possible.

Alison McGovern: You and Ministers, Mr Speaker, will remember that, three and a half years ago, New Ferry in my constituency suffered from a terrible gas explosion, which hurt people and left a massive hole in our town centre. I am grateful that, this week, Ministers will meet me to discuss progress that we are making rebuilding New Ferry. I simply ask the Minister if he will join with me to publicly thank, and place on the record the thanks of all of us to, the people of New Ferry for the work that they have done to rebuild our town centre.

Luke Hall: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I pay extreme tribute to the residents, businesses and charitable organisations in New Ferry who have worked so hard to recover and get the town back on its feet over the past three years. I know that she is meeting one of my ministerial colleagues later this week, but as a Local Government Minister I am also at her disposal to discuss this hugely important matter in her constituency.

Kevin Hollinrake: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to address the inherent unfairness in the operation of the housing infrastructure fund, which allocates 80% of its budget to London and the south-east and only 20% of it to the rest of us?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend and I have agreed on this point for some time. The housing infrastructure fund directs funding to those areas where there is the greatest affordability challenge. That is important, in some respects, but any Government who want to level up must also direct infrastructure investment for housing to other parts of the country as well. I will certainly bear that in mind as we design the successor to the housing infrastructure fund later this year.

Chris Matheson: Managing the coronavirus pandemic has already cost Cheshire West and Chester Council over £35 million. Despite Government support, which I welcome, it is still £8 million behind on its current budget, which  is already depleted by £330 million since 2010 by Government cuts. Will Ministers now commit to providing the support to make good the £8 million deficit that has been caused by the management of the coronavirus crisis?

Luke Hall: As I said, we have provided £4.8 billion to local authorities up and down the country to support them with the cost of the pandemic, and £3.1 billion has been spent in addressing those pressures. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his council has received £21 million in additional covid funding on top of the increase in core spending power of almost £18 million this year, which of course he supported.

Scott Benton: I thank my right hon. Friend for the unprecedented level of financial support that his Department has provided to regenerate Blackpool town centre—not just the £8.6 million that we received over the course of the summer but the £50 million that we are expecting to receive via the towns fund and the future high streets fund. Can he reassure me that regenerating towns  such as Blackpool will remain at the very heart of this Government’s levelling up agenda as we get the economy back on track?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion for Blackpool in his time in the House so far. It is absolutely right that Blackpool receives further investment to help it to continue to drive forwards. That is why I am pleased that it is a recipient of funding from the high streets fund and the towns fund. I look forward to announcing the outcome of both this autumn.

Chris Bryant: It is 232 days since Storm Dennis flooded many, many properties in Rhondda. A quarter of all such properties in the whole of the UK were in one constituency, Rhondda, and that is wholly disproportionate to the normal funding for the Welsh Assembly. It is 222 days since the Prime Minister promised my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) that the money would be passported through to the local authorities from Westminster to Wales to pay for that. It is 97 days since the Prime Minister wrote to me to say that this was all going to be sorted out. It is 74 days since the Treasury said that it was going to sort this out. Yet we still have not had a single penny. Can the Secretary of State prove to be the best Minister of the lot and sort it out by the end of today?

Robert Jenrick: I am happy to take that up with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Environment Secretary and revert to the hon. Gentleman with a plan.

Stephen McPartland: The Secretary of State has overseen a shocking betrayal of millions of people who are trapped in flats they cannot sell because of cladding, irrespective of the height. Mortgage companies are refusing to remortgage. Shared ownership tenants who own only 10% are being forced to pay 100% of the cost. When is the Secretary of State going to get out of his ivory tower, stop talking and start actually helping our constituents?

Robert Jenrick: I do not agree with that analysis of the actions that we have taken as a Government. We are bringing forward the biggest change to building safety regulations in a generation. We have outlined plans for our £1.6 billion fund. Of course there is more that we could do. This is one of the most challenging and difficult issues faced by the Government today, or indeed any Government, and has built up over many generations, but we intend to tackle it and to provide support for those in need.

Neil Coyle: Covid regulations prevent homeless shelters from opening, so will the Government extend the severe weather emergency protocol to cover all areas affected by any lockdown, both to protect homeless people and to prevent the virus from spreading?

Robert Jenrick: We are working with the chief medical officer’s team and Public Health England to prepare guidance as to how night shelters could be opened safely and in what circumstances, but the hon. Gentleman is obviously right that it is difficult to do so in a covid-compliant manner, so we are working with local councils to consider alternatives so that nobody should be left on the streets in the coldest weather this winter.

Tom Randall: My constituents in villages such as Burton Joyce and Stoke Bardolph understandably want to protect their green spaces and their village identity, which are part of what makes those places what they are. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government’s proposed planning reforms will ensure that local people are empowered to decide on the shape of their community?

Robert Jenrick: I can certainly confirm that. We want to ensure that the green belt is protected so that there are beautiful green spaces for our constituents to enjoy and the identity of villages and communities such as those that my hon. Friend represents is protected and preserved for future generations.

Kenny MacAskill: John Wheatley’s Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1924 transformed municipal housing not simply for Scotland but for the UK. A century on, that legacy has been tarnished by Tory policies and is now threatened by the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) mentioned. Will the Secretary of State guarantee not to reduce Scottish standards, given the understandable fears that arise as a result of Grenfell and other Tory cutbacks, or will the lesson be, as with other Red Clydesiders like John Wheatley, that only an independent Scottish Parliament can protect the rights of Scottish people?

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Member is entirely incorrect. We are determined to build more homes in this country while protecting and enhancing standards, and absolutely nothing that we do will compromise building safety regulations. Indeed, quite the opposite. We are creating the largest change to building safety standards in my lifetime.

Munira Wilson: In ensuring that children with special educational needs and disabilities have the provision that they need locally, the London Borough of Richmond is running a cumulative deficit of some £15 million in the high needs element of its dedicated schools budget, putting wider council finances and services at risk. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me, representatives of the council and the Department for Education to find a workable solution to this untenable situation? Our discussions with the DFE have proved fruitless so far.

Luke Hall: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Of course she is right that the dedicated schools grant is administered by the DFE, which is responsible for its amount and allocation, but we are certainly working closely with the DFE, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the sector to understand what more can be done to mitigate the immediate risks. I am personally very happy to meet her and her council to have a discussion about what more can be done.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call Kevan Jones to ask his urgent question, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that the 44 cases referred to in the urgent question are formally still the subject of active legal appeal proceedings. Because there is little risk of prejudice now that it is known that the appeals will not be contested, I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow exchanges today by waiving sub judice in respect of these cases. All Members should, however, be mindful that some cases remain contested or may be the subject of future legal proceedings and should be cautious in making reference to individual cases.

CCRC Decision on 44 Post Office Prosecutions

Kevan Jones: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the 44 Post Office prosecutions overturned by the CCRC.

Paul Scully: I appreciate the urgent question. The Government recognise that the Horizon dispute has had a hugely damaging effect on the lives of affected postmasters and their families, and its repercussions are still being felt today. I have spoken to a number of postmasters who have been affected by this ordeal.
On 2 October, the Post Office formally responded to the Court of Appeal and Southwark Crown court regarding convicted postmasters whose cases were referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Post Office has stated that it will not oppose 44 out of the 47 cases. The Post Office also sincerely apologised to postmasters for historical failings and underlined its commitment to delivering a fundamental review of the businesses and to resetting its relationship with postmasters, to ensure that this never happens again.
This decision by the Post Office is an important milestone for postmasters whose convictions are part of this appeals process. Friday’s announcement was not, however, the end of that process. It is now for the courts to decide whether the convictions should be overturned. It would not therefore be appropriate for the Government to comment on these cases until that process is complete.
The Post Office continues to co-operate fully with the CCRC and is in the process of reviewing about 900 historical prosecutions. Should it find any new information that may cast doubt on the safety of a conviction, it has confirmed that it will disclose that information to the person who is convicted. We will continue to monitor the work of the Post Office closely. In addition, I am pleased that the Government last week launched an inquiry, chaired by retired High Court judge Sir Wyn Williams, which will gather relevant available evidence to provide a public summary of the failings that occurred in relation to Horizon and assess whether lessons have been learned and concrete changes have taken place, or at least are under way, at the Post Office.

Kevan Jones: I had high hopes for the Minister when he was appointed, but unfortunately he is reverting to type, like all his predecessors I have had to deal with over the last eight years. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), Lord Arbuthnot and I have been campaigning on this issue for nearly nine years, and I know that many other Members across the House have individual cases and have been involved in this. It is six years since the three of us met the CCRC, and I am pleased that Friday’s announcement made it clear that the Post Office would not pursue 44 of the cases. But those are simple words, and they belie the agony and torment of these individuals and of hundreds of other individuals who have lost their livelihoods, their good names and, in some cases, their freedom. In other cases, people have lost their lives.
I am sorry, Minister, but what you have said today is not good enough. I cannot get over the fact that this scandal—that is what it is—is still being treated as somehow an issue of the Post Office. The Government are the single shareholder in the Post Office; they are the ones who can actually make some changes, so I would like to ask them some direct questions.
First, as the single shareholder, were the Government involved in the decision not to take forward these prosecutions, in the same way they were involved with the £100 million they spent in defending the civil case last year? Secondly, in terms of the convictions that have been overturned, the Minister said in June that there would be a process in place for compensation. Will he announce a compensation process, or will these people have to pursue cases through the court for compensation? Can I also ask where we are at with the historic compensation process? I understand that 2,000 claims have been made, but not a penny has yet been paid out.
Finally, can I put this issue to the Minister? I am sorry, but the review he has announced is not good enough. It may have a retired judge at its head, but he does not have the powers to summon witnesses and cross-examine them. A full public inquiry is needed. Without that, we will not get to the truth of what is, as I have already said, a national scandal.

Paul Scully: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those points, and I will try to deal with them directly. The decision to prosecute postmasters was an operational matter for the Post Office, and the Government are not involved in operational decisions. However, in hindsight, knowing what we know now, it is clear that different conclusions could and should have been reached by the Post Office, and that is why the inquiry is there to look at the lessons.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a route for compensation, should postmasters who have been convicted have their convictions overturned. There are processes in place for them to receive compensation if appropriate, and that includes a statutory scheme under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
In terms of the latest update on the historical shortfall scheme, the Post Office launched the scheme on 1 May to allow postmasters who were not part of the group litigation to have issues with shortfalls recorded in Horizon investigated and addressed. The window for applications formally closed on 14 August, but late applications are being considered by the Post Office on a case-by-case basis. There have been over 2,200 claims, and the independent panel advising the Post Office on the scheme is now assessing those.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the inquiry. A judge-led inquiry is very much what was asked for. We have Sir Wyn Williams, a former judge, at the head of that. He will be an independent chair; he will be able to ask the questions, push back at the Government and the Post Office, and get evidence. The reason it is an inquiry rather than a review is that, reflecting on the way its remit was worded, I have always wanted it to be a backward-looking review that enabled evidence to be sought, rather than to be done on just a desktop basis. We have clarified that in the written statement, and I  believe this is the inquiry—albeit on a non-statutory basis—that will actually get the answers, and do it in a quick way that hopefully satisfies the sub-postmasters and gets the answers they want.

Lucy Allan: Almost 20 years ago, Telford resident Tracy Felstead—then a 19-year-old post office clerk—was wrongly convicted and jailed because of a glitch in the Post Office computer system. Last week, the Post Office finally conceded defeat in the long-running battle between David and Goliath. How did a respectable organisation such as the Post Office, a major software company such as for Fujitsu, the great and the good in the civil service, and Ministers from all parties fall prey to groupthink on such a grand scale, so that, despite this computer error occurring across the country, it was assumed that the only possible explanation was that all sub-postmasters affected were dishonest? What action will my hon. Friend take to ensure the Post Office and Fujitsu are properly held to account, and will he commit to determining who knew what and when during this shameful saga?

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to get to the bottom of who knew what and when. That is why I am determined that, under Sir Wyn Williams’ chairmanship, we can seek evidence to complement what is already available from Mr Justice Fraser’s findings by speaking to the Post Office and Fujitsu, who have agreed to comply fully with this inquiry. I also hope that sub-postmasters will, through conversation with Sir Wyn Williams, agree to get involved so that they can share their evidence and stories and so that we can get to the bottom of this, exactly as my hon. Friend says.

Chi Onwurah: The Post Office Horizon scandal may well be the largest miscarriage of justice in our history, with 900 prosecutions, innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned, careers ruined, families destroyed, reputations smashed and lives lost. I pay tribute to the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance and all who campaigned with them, including Members on all sides of the House, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who secured this urgent question.
For decades, the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, imposing huge stress and legal fees on the victims and spending tens of millions of pounds in the process. Friday’s announcement is a welcome relief for so many, but can the Minister tell us why, as its only shareholder, the Government allowed the Post Office to continue to oppose the appeals for so long? Far from it being merely an operational matter, as the Minister has said, will he admit that this represents a gross failure of oversight, and will he tell us how much this has cost the Post Office and, ultimately, the taxpayer? What is the estimated cost of the compensation that will now need to be paid to those prosecuted, and what of those who were pursued, harassed and bankrupted, but not ultimately prosecuted? It is right that the Government have finally announced a judge-led inquiry into this scandal, which Labour called for months ago, but despite this House having expressed its concerns forcefully, the terms of reference deliberately exclude compensation. Will the Minister amend the terms of reference to include compensation and deliver true justice for the victims?
A miscarriage of justice on this scale undermines confidence in the justice system. Is it right that the Post Office has the power of independent prosecution, and is the Minister reviewing it? The victims need justice, not more unanswered questions. The taxpayer needs to know just how much this failure of oversight has, and will, cost. Finally, the Government need to take responsibility for this debacle and ensure nothing like it can ever happen again.

Paul Scully: I thank the hon. Lady for her question—there were a number of questions in that. In terms of the Government’s involvement, as I say, the Post Office’s decisions are operational decisions for it and its board. What happened when—whether there was any Government involvement in terms of the Government shareholder, the board’s appointee, as well as the Post Office—will come up in the independent inquiry, and it is right that they are questioned so that we find out what happened and when.
On the issue of compensation, if the sub-postmasters get involved in this inquiry and share their evidence, they will be able to share their stories and the losses that they have made, both directly and indirectly. However, an inquiry cannot direct compensation; ultimately, that has to be done through the courts.

Andrew Mitchell: It is clearly not this very good Minister’s fault, but it is clear, is it not, that a monstrous injustice by the state has been visited upon these poor postmasters and postmistresses, leaving us all, I would hope, extremely uneasy. By refusing to allow the inquiry even to consider the compensation that they should be given, are not the Government, who own, fund and direct the Post Office, in danger of making an already truly dreadful situation even worse?

Paul Scully: I thank my right hon. Friend for those personal comments. We are constituency MPs as well, so we can all, I hope, share the horror when we hear the stories of those people, who could easily have been constituents of mine. In terms of compensation, as I say, there are avenues open to those who have been wrongfully prosecuted, there is reason for people to be able to talk about their losses, and it is then for Sir Wyn Williams to present his findings when he concludes the independent inquiry.

Marion Fellows: During this pandemic, the post office network has shown what a valuable community asset it is. Cases being reviewed in Scotland and the rest of the UK should result in financial compensation to all those innocent people who suffered as a result of the Horizon scandal. I pay tribute to all who have worked for justice in these cases. Will the Minister commit today to ensuring that the costs do not put the post office network at further financial risks? Also, does he still not understand that a non-statutory review is not an independent inquiry, as was promised by the Prime Minister?

Paul Scully: In terms of the post office network, it is up to the Post Office to work out how best to compensate people, and it will be looking at that in due course. We will continue to work with the new chief executive, Nick Read, who is looking to put the future relationship with postmasters on a sure footing. In terms of an independent  inquiry, this is the judge-led inquiry that has been asked for, albeit on a non-statutory footing. It is judge-led and it is backward looking, in terms of taking evidence from all those involved. When the hon. Lady sees the findings at the end, I hope she will see that, although perhaps not everybody will get everything they want, we will get answers about who knew what, when.

Andrew Bridgen: May I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this urgent question? The Minister is well aware of my long-term interest in this topic, which has been a running sore for far too long. How confident is he that the review that he announced last week will gain the support and participation of all the stakeholders involved in this issue, and will it be able to hold to account and hold responsible those who allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to occur? If it cannot do the first of those, what confidence can he have that it will ensure that this intolerable situation will never ever be repeated?

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly good point. It is important, first, that Sir Wyn Williams engages with the sub-postmasters, led by Alan Bates, as part of the group litigation, to explain how he intends to investigate and take evidence, and I hope that they would therefore engage. I have talked about the fact that the Post Office and Fujitsu are ready to comply fully with the investigation, but if there are important people with important evidence that is not coming out, for whatever reason, there are mechanisms available to the chairman, Sir Wyn Williams, to look at that further and to re-evaluate.

Sarah Olney: Two post offices in my constituency are threatened with closure because of the difficulty of recruiting new sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses. What impact does the Minister think the appalling case of Horizon has had on recruitment? Is he anxious about the future of post offices, particularly rural ones but even those in urban constituencies such as mine? What is the Department doing to work with the Post Office on this issue?

Paul Scully: Yes, I am anxious, because it is important that we keep the network up at the target level we set of 11,500. The hon. Lady is right that some of the difficulty is due to the situation gone by; some of it is due to the ongoing complexity of the Horizon system and resource availability. I am glad that the chief executive, Nick Read, comes from a business where he is used to dealing with people as stakeholders, not just as employees, so engaging in a more positive future relationship with postmasters. She is right to talk about rural and urban areas. In London, although clearly we do not want to lose post offices, it is relatively easy compared with some rural areas to get to the next post office, but that is not an excuse to diminish the network in London.

Caroline Nokes: In his previous response, the Minister said he is anxious about the future of the network. I welcome the statement that the Post Office wants to reset the relationship with sub-postmasters, but if he is anxious, what measures is he going to take to make sure that that actually  happens? He says that he expects compensation from the Post Office “in due course”, but will he put a timescale on that?

Paul Scully: On compensation, it depends on the situation of the people involved. Those who have been wrongfully convicted have recourse through the courts. I have regular contact with Nick Read, the chief executive, and other members of the board to make sure that we look at post office closures as reported to me by MPs and from updates, and increase and improve recruitment of postmasters, which will be achieved through a better future relationship.

Rupa Huq: Will the Minister join me in thanking all those at the Post Office and Royal Mail who have kept us all going throughout this crisis? As we know, a disproportionate number are from BME communities, who have experienced such death and suffering, like my constituent Varchas Patel and his family. They are pleased that their appeal is not being contested, but they wonder what action is now being taken against those at the top—those in management and leadership positions in the organisation—who presided over this scandal. Or are this algorithm-obsessed Government stuck in a “computer says no” mode?

Paul Scully: I can assure the hon. Lady that the computer very much says yes, which is why we have launched an independent inquiry.

Elliot Colburn: I have not yet had the chance in this place to congratulate my constituency neighbour and former boss on his ministerial appointment.
I have met Carshalton and Wallington residents, including Nirmala Fatania, who have been affected by the Horizon scandal and whose lives have been turned upside down. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Post Office will co-operate fully with the inquiry, that we will learn the necessary lessons, and that we will make sure that nothing like this ever happens again?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend—I did not ask him to say what he did, but it is gratefully received and he can come again.
All of us as constituency MPs hear from people like Nirmala Fatania. We are determined to get the answers through the independent inquiry, so that this can never happen again.

Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend accept that those present or former Post Office officials who perpetrated this disaster and perpetuated the agony of the victims must be punished, not promoted, and shamed, rather than rewarded with honours, as I believe happened in at least one prominent instance?

Paul Scully: Yes, the Honours Committee and any future employers need to look at the background of any person involved in this. However, as I said, the inquiry is independent, and I do not want to stamp my authority on it. It is now for Sir Wyn Williams to question people  and get answers. I want everyone, including people at the Post Office who were involved and are now no longer employed there, to engage in the process.

Emma Lewell-Buck: For years, pleas from MPs to address this scandal have been ignored because of the Government’s cosy relationship with the Post Office. My constituents Kevin and Julie Carter and Dionne Andrew, like hundreds of others, have had to fight for justice every step of the way as they try to clear their names. They have lost more than the Minister can ever comprehend. What protections will the Government put in place so that never again can powerful organisations behave in this way and use the criminal courts with such unaccountability?

Paul Scully: I am glad to report that the Post Office is not using private prosecutions any more—the Justice Committee met last week to talk about private prosecutions—but the hon. Member is absolutely right to talk about her constituents and the losses they have suffered. I am glad that the independent inquiry will be able to get to the bottom of that to make sure that it can never happen again.

Scott Mann: In my previous life, I remember collecting the mail from post office branches at the time the Horizon scandal was happening. I remember vividly the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses not being able to balance the tills at that time, and having the stress and anguish of that resting over them. While it is absolutely right that we recognise the hole the Post Office is in, it is worth remembering that at its heart—its very core—is not some mythical bogeyman, but hard-working sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses across the country. The reputational damage that has been done by the Horizon scandal threatens their very livelihoods, and we need to act on this now. With the traditional banking system closing many of the branches in rural communities, what can the Department do to ensure that post office branches have a workable banking system and can offer other services to make these vital rural services more viable?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. It is important to remember what a vital service the post office is for all of us, and we must make sure that while we are looking backwards at the situation with sub-postmasters, we do not threaten the future viability of the network. On banking, we are working with the Post Office as it introduces greater services for various banks to expand the branches and the types of banks they can deal with in-house.

Martyn Day: I would urge the 73 Scottish cases whose convictions may be unsafe as a result of this injustice, which was overseen by consecutive Labour, Tory and Lib Dem Ministers, to contact the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister, with his predecessors, write a cross-party letter to the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance apologising for the parts they have played in this saga?

Paul Scully: I would echo the hon. Gentleman’s call for people to make sure they are in touch if they believe their convictions are not safe, because the Post Office is  determined to make sure, as it looks back and reviews those 900 prosecutions, that it will be in contact—it is committed to being in contact itself—with anybody it feels is part of the Horizon process.

Rob Butler: Last week, the Justice Committee, of which I am a member, published a report into private prosecutions, which was prompted by the Horizon scandal. Does my hon. Friend agree with its recommendation that any organisation that conducts a substantial number of private prosecutions should be required to meet the same standards of regulation, accountability and transparency as public prosecutors, and will he discuss that with the Lord Chancellor as a matter of urgency?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and as I have said, I pay tribute to the work that the Committee has done. The Government will certainly consider the very many sensible points that have been raised in the report, and we will report back in due course.

Andrew Gwynne: My constituent Della Robinson was formerly a local sub-postmistress in Dukinfield, and she lost almost everything in this scandal, including her reputation. I welcome the latest announcement, but when did the Minister know that the Post Office would not oppose the appeals, what discussions did he have with Post Office officials and did they discuss the amount this would cost the Post Office and, ultimately, taxpayers?

Paul Scully: We discuss that with the Post Office regularly, and it is the Post Office’s decision not to oppose the appeals. This is clearly part of the recognition that it got things wrong so much over a period of time. I am glad that this change of approach is something that can get to the bottom of sub-postmasters’ questions and clearly right the wrongs of the past.

Robert Largan: My father used to be a postman, and I know the vital role that postmasters play in serving many of our communities, especially in rural areas such as High Peak, but the way that many of them have been treated during this scandal is appalling. Can the Minister assure me that he will do everything he can to make certain the Post Office keeps to the commitments it has now made, and that we learn the lessons so that something like this can never happen again?

Paul Scully: My uncle was a sub-postmaster in a rural area, and I saw the way he worked; that predated Horizon. We have watched people like him and my hon. Friend’s father work so hard in their communities, and the last thing they should expect is the scandal that has befallen some of these individuals. We must make sure that through this independent inquiry we get the answers so it can never happen again.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that I chair the all-party miscarriages of justice group? I have never seen anything as awful as this: so many people’s lives made a misery; their reputations ruined; their whole future and their families broken up. This is so important that I would have expected today at least the Secretary of State on his knees in sackcloth  and ashes. Will the Minister make sure that these people get justice, because this was not done by machines or computers; it was done and organised and managed by people, and they should be held to account? Does the Minister agree?

Paul Scully: The brief answer is no in terms of the chairmanship; in terms of the Secretary of State and sackcloth and ashes, I am the postal affairs Minister so I am the one who set up the inquiry and I am determined that we get the answers the hon. Gentleman is seeking.

Jason McCartney: I, too, put on record my thanks to our community post offices; they have provided a vital lifeline during this pandemic in my villages and towns in Colne Valley. In terms of the inquiry, can the Minister assure me that my constituent, Maria, who is one of the victims of this scandal, and all the other victims will be able to give evidence so that they will be heard, and that we will get some conclusion to this inquiry within the next year?

Paul Scully: It is up to Sir Wyn Williams how he wants to frame that inquiry, but it is absolutely set up for sub-postmasters to have their voices heard and to report back within about a year.

Gavin Newlands: I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and agree with what he said. This has been a dreadful affair during which neither the Post Office nor the Government have covered themselves in glory. A constituent of mine was sent to prison as a result of Horizon issues and was forced to sell their family home, leading to the breakdown of their marriage, yet in a letter to me the Government said they had no plans to prosecute anyone as a number of decision makers were involved. My constituent’s life is in tatters; who is going to be held responsible?

Paul Scully: On who is held responsible, let us wait for the response from Sir Wyn Williams and the independent inquiry. I know that, from Justice Fraser’s findings, some names have been recommended to the Crown Prosecution Service for it to discuss and investigate.

Martin Vickers: Like other Members across the House, I have constituents whose lives have been destroyed by this scandal, and I welcome the establishment of the inquiry. Can the Minister assure me that any recommendations that emerge from it will be acted on promptly, and will he undertake immediately to speak to senior management at the Post Office to establish whether structures are now in place to ensure that nothing like this could happen in the interim?

Paul Scully: Absolutely: I want to ensure this is dealt with in a timely fashion, and we will take all the recommendations very seriously, because we want to get to the bottom of this. I continue to work with, and speak to, Nick Read, the chief executive, and listen to him and push him to ensure that the lessons have been learned and the structures are in place.

Kate Osborne: Campaigners have labelled the review into the Post Office as a whitewash and a betrayal, and instead are calling for a full independent inquiry with statutory powers, as agreed by the Prime Minister in response to my question to him in February,  so will the Minister confirm that statutory powers will be given to the inquiry, meaning that full accounts from former sub-postmasters will be heard as evidence and witnesses will be cross-examined, to ensure that proper justice is served?

Paul Scully: The Prime Minister promised an independent inquiry, and that is what we have announced. We want to make sure that postmasters engage with it. The Post Office and Fujitsu have also said they will engage with it. It is now for Sir Wyn Williams to instigate the inquiry and get it under way, and he can always report back if he finds he is not getting the support he needs.

Kevin Hollinrake: When you have caught and removed the fox from the henhouse, it is never a good idea to put it back in there to compensate the rest of the chickens. We did exactly that with Lloyds, and I fear we are doing exactly that with the Post Office. There is no obvious means of compensation for those with criminal convictions. The jury is out on the historic shortfall scheme, and those who are employed as sub-postmasters through McColl’s or the Co-op have no direct means of compensation. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to making sure that every single person who was disadvantaged is fairly compensated?

Paul Scully: There is a separate director within Post Office Ltd who is looking specifically at the historic shortfall scheme to make sure that the rest of Post Office Ltd has the capacity to reset its relationship with postmasters, but we will of course look at Sir Wyn Williams’s findings. Postmasters who have had wrongful convictions have other methods of compensation, as I outlined in my original statement.

Emma Hardy: My constituent Tracy Major was falsely accused of stealing £24,000 from Anlaby Park post office. She was innocent. She has had her reputation destroyed, she has suffered unimaginable stress, and she is also looking at losing more than £150,000. She has received only £20,000 in compensation. How will the Government and the Post Office ensure she has the justice she deserves?

Paul Scully: If the hon. Lady’s constituent was in the group litigation, the compensation was settled in a full and final settlement that was agreed with the Post Office. The Post Office has said it will not contest the wrongful convictions. We will see what happens in the courts, but anybody who has been wrongfully convicted who was not part of that group litigation will have other methods of returning to compensation.

Marcus Fysh: Sub-postmasters often operate in very small communities where everybody knows each other. This has been an incredibly painful experience for them, their families and their communities. I welcome the establishment of the inquiry, but will the Minister please assure us that it will not be a whitewash? Many sub-postmasters in my constituency are anxious to know that.

Paul Scully: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that it will not be a whitewash. I am determined to get the answers we need from the Post Office and Fujitsu and, indeed, from Government in terms of our role. We want to hear from sub-postmasters about their stories, their evidence and their losses. It is now for Sir Wyn Williams, a retired judge, to get to the bottom of it and to get those questions answered.

Clive Efford: People have had their reputations trashed. They have been made bankrupt. Others have gone to prison. What is the Minister doing to ensure that they are assisted while we wait for this inquiry? What we do not need is justice delayed and justice denied. We need action now, so what is he doing to assist those who are in real difficulties?

Paul Scully: What I am doing is announcing the inquiry; one of the big reasons I did not want it to be a statutory inquiry, although I can understand the impetus, is that statutory inquiries can last for decades sometimes and cause even more expense. In this way, we can get the answers within a year, I hope, so that we can put this issue to bed and get the answers that people want.

Bob Neill: The Minister is aware of the Justice Committee’s report on this matter. He will know that any wrongful conviction potentially undermines the whole of the justice system. Rather than waiting a year for the outcome of this review, will he meet urgently with the Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), to discuss the specific recommendations that the Committee makes in its report to ensure that safeguards are applied? Through that, we can ensure that the standards applied by those who have the power to bring private prosecutions are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said, never less than those applied by the Crown Prosecution Service. Being judge, jury, investigator and victim potentially creates very great conflicts of interest.

Paul Scully: I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Justice Committee for all the work he has done and for the report the Committee published last week. I am always happy to speak to the Attorney General, and I will definitely take consideration in due course of that report.

Alistair Carmichael: I welcome the progress that we have made thus far in getting at least an element of judicial oversight of this inquiry. Like others, I remain sceptical about whether it will be sufficient, but to proceed on the basis that it is, and that the undertakings that the Minister has given the House today are sufficient to do the job, will he now look at the damage that has been done to the availability of postmasters as a whole across the whole of the country? Communities such as mine rely on them very heavily, and it is becoming more and more difficult with every month that passes to fill those very important positions.

Paul Scully: I absolutely see the right hon. Gentleman’s point. This may well be a contributing factor, but there are plenty of other factors that make it difficult to recruit postmasters, particularly in areas such as his. However, we will do whatever we can to fill those places and keep that network up.

Scott Benton: The Horizon litigation process has caused immeasurable financial and emotional suffering and distress to the sub-postmasters who have been affected, including some of my constituents. Will my hon. Friend commit to studying whatever recommendations may come forward from the inquiry to ensure that this never happens again?

Paul Scully: Yes—one of the reasons for making it a non-statutory inquiry is so that we can get the answers quickly, study them, put things in place, and ensure that the Post Office has put the structures in place to ensure that it never happens again. We can keep its feet to the fire to make that work.

Navendu Mishra: The Communication Workers Union has been campaigning on this issue for a long time. I join others in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for getting this urgent question. The inquiry that the Minister has set up seems to lack statutory powers. Will he comment on that? I know that he has made other comments on that matter. Also, how much taxpayers’ money was spent opposing appeals on the sub-postmaster scandal?

Paul Scully: On a statutory inquiry, as I have said in a number of answers, I want to ensure that we can get the answers quickly, rather than having people, as I described in a previous answer, lawyering up, which adds expense and time for the postmasters who have been through so much. I deal with the CWU on a regular basis. In terms of taxpayers’ money, the Post Office has funded the prosecutions through its own profits.

Marco Longhi: Sometimes when we hear the words “lessons learned” it can sound a little glib, if not a little trite. Given the extent and the depth of the harm caused by this scandal, can the Minister assure me and the House that we will get to the very bottom of what has gone wrong?

Paul Scully: Nobody but nobody, least of all me, can fail to be appalled by what we read about some of the situations, and some of the hardship and worse that many constituents have been through. That is why I am determined to listen to the evidence to ensure that we get those answers, so that it can never happen again.

Gareth Thomas: The truth is that Ministers have set up a half-baked inquiry in response to this extraordinary scandal, without the  powers to fully get to the bottom of this mess. Will the Minister at least commit to returning to this House to set out in full both the compensation arrangements and any financial implications for the future of the Post Office?

Paul Scully: Let us see what the result is from Sir Wyn Williams’ investigations and inquiry in the first place. Compensation is a matter for the Post Office, which has talked about the historical shortfall scheme. It wants to ensure that people who are wrongfully convicted are compensated accordingly.

Peter Gibson: I welcome the Minister’s decision to seek justice for sub-postmasters. What steps is he taking to support victims of this scandal now, and to ensure that such mistakes never happen again?

Paul Scully: On what we can do, we can look for those answers now—not in five or 10 years’ time. These people have suffered enough. They need answers, and they need to be able to draw a line under the stigma that has been attached to so many. That is why the independent inquiry needs to report back, hopefully within around a year, to be able to draw that line for them.

Drew Hendry: The Minister says he does not want a statutory inquiry. I think many of those affected will be sceptical about his reasons for that. Hundreds of people have been wrongly sued and pursued, with many imprisoned and many more losing their businesses and livelihoods. His Government and previous Governments have been central to an epic scandal. The Prime Minister promised a full independent inquiry. Why is that promise now being broken, like so many others by his Government?

Paul Scully: The inquiry is both independent and in full. It is one thing the Prime Minister promised, and it is one thing we have delivered. It has taken too long to get there, but we will get those answers in a few short months.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19 Update

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we proceed with the Secretary of State’s statement, I remind hon. Members that the conduct of another Member should not, other than by a substantive motion, be criticised on the Floor of the House.

Matthew Hancock: With permission, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus. The virus is spreading, both here and overseas. In the past week, over 450,000 people tested positive for coronavirus in Europe, almost double the number of cases a month ago. Here in the UK, the number of hospital admissions is now at its highest since mid-June. Last week, the Office for National Statistics said that while the rate of increase may be falling, the number of cases is still rising. Yesterday, there were 12,594 new positive cases. The rise is more localised than first time around, with cases rising particularly sharply in the north-east and the north-west of England, and in parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Now more than ever, with winter ahead, we must all remain vigilant and get the virus under control.
Let me turn to the operational issues on data publication, the future plans for medicine licensing and, of course, the announcement of 40 hospitals made by the Prime Minister on Friday night. I wish to take the first available opportunity to set out to the House the technical issue relating to case uploads that was discovered by Public Health England on Friday evening. It is an ongoing incident and I come to the House straight from an operational update from my officials.
On Friday night, Public Health England identified that over the previous eight days, 15,841 positive test results were not included in the reported daily cases. This was due to a failure in the automated transfer of files from the labs to PHE’s data systems. I reassure everyone that every single person who tested positive was told that result in the normal way and in the normal timeframe. They were told that they needed to self-isolate, which is now required by law. However, the positive test results were not reported in the public data and were not transferred to the contact tracing system.
I thank colleagues who have been working since late on Friday night and throughout the weekend to resolve this problem. I wish to set out the steps we have taken. First, contact tracing of the relevant cases began first thing on Saturday. We brought in 6,500 hours of extra contact tracing over the weekend. I can report to the House that, as of 9 am today, 51% of the cases have now been contacted a second time for contact tracing purposes. I reassure the House that outbreak control in care homes, schools and hospitals has not been directly affected because dealing with outbreaks in those settings does not primarily rely on this particular PHE system.
Secondly, the number of cases did not flow through to the dashboards that we use for both internal and external monitoring of the epidemic. Over the weekend, we updated the public dashboard, and this morning the Joint Biosecurity Centre presented to me its updated analysis of the epidemic based on the new figures. The chief medical officer’s analysis is that our assessment of the disease and its impact has not substantially changed as a result of the new data, and the JBC has confirmed  that it has not impacted the basis on which decisions about local action were taken last week. Nevertheless, this is a serious issue that is been investigated fully. I thank Public Health England and NHS Test and Trace, which have been working together at speed to resolve this issue. I thank everyone for their hard work over the weekend. This incident should never have happened, but the team have acted swiftly to minimise its impact. It is now critical that we work together to put the situation right and make sure that it never happens again.
Another important area of our coronavirus battle plan is treatments. As the House knows, the only treatment known to work against coronavirus was discovered here in the UK. As we leave the EU, I want to use the opportunity to improve how quickly we get new drugs to patients, so the UK is joining Canada, the United States, Australia, Switzerland and Singapore in Project Orbis, which will allow international regulators to work together to review and approve the next generation of cancer treatments faster. It will mean that pharmaceutical companies can submit treatments to be reviewed by several countries at the same time, meaning that we can co-operate with the best medical regulators in the world and make approvals quicker so that we can get patients the fastest possible access to new drugs. It is an exciting development. We will join the scheme fully on 1 January, after the end of the transition period, because we will stop at nothing to bring faster access to life-saving treatments on the NHS.
We are investing in hospitals, too. Two weeks ago, I announced to the House that we are investing an extra £150 million in expanding capacity in urgent and emergency care so that hospitals have the space to continue to treat patients safely in the pandemic. I am delighted that on Friday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the 40 hospitals we will build by 2030, as part of a package worth £3.7 billion, with eight further new schemes, including mental health facilities, invited to bid for future funding and also to be built by 2030. This is the biggest hospital building programme in a generation, and the investment comes on top of an extra £33.9 billion a year that the Government will be providing to the NHS by 2023-24. We passed that into law right at the start of this Parliament, and the 40 new hospitals across England will support our mission to level up our NHS so that even more people have top-class healthcare services in their local area, and so that we can protect the NHS long into the future.
Finally, it is critical that our rules are clear at local level so that the public can be certain of what they need to do to suppress this virus, and I will update the House in due course on what action the Government are taking, so that we can have more consistent approaches to levels of local action, working with our colleagues in local government. For now, it is essential that people follow the guidance in their local area, and if they need to check the rules, they can check on their local authority website. History shows us that the battle against any pandemic is never quick and never easy. It requires making major sacrifices and difficult choices. I know that this has been a tough year for so many, but we are asking people to persevere as winter draws in, because the only safe path is to suppress the virus, protecting the economy, education and the NHS, until a vaccine can make us safe. I commend this statement to the House.

Jon Ashworth: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. In recent weeks, we have had people being told to travel hundreds of miles for a test; we have had hundreds of children out of school unable to get a test; we have had tracers sitting idle, watching Netflix; and we have had care home tests taking days to be processed. Yesterday, we had a Health Minister saying that this could be a moment of national pride like the Olympics, and we have had a Prime Minister in a complete muddle over the rules. Now, at one of the most crucial points in this pandemic, we learn that almost 16,000 positive cases went unreported for a week. That means that as many as 48,000 contacts have not been traced and are not isolating. Those thousands of people, blissfully unaware that they have been exposed to covid, are potentially spreading this deadly virus at a time when hospital admissions are increasing and we are in the second wave.
This is not just a shambles; it so much worse than that. It gives me no comfort to say it, but it is putting lives at risk, and the Secretary of State should apologise when he responds. No doubt he will complain about my tone, or say that he will not have any divisive talk, but people want answers. He has just said that over half the 16,000 people have been spoken to by tracers, and they have presumably handed over their contacts, but when will the other 49% be spoken to by contact tracers? How many of the contacts have now been traced and spoken to, and how many are isolating? Why did nobody notice this issue until Friday night? Why did it take until 9.30 on Sunday evening for this to become public? The Prime Minister was clearly aware of the problem, because he said on “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday morning that there had been a
“failure in the counting system, which has now been rectified”.
Speed is of the essence when dealing with a pandemic, so when were local directors of public health informed? The Secretary of State says that this is an ongoing issue, so it has not been rectified, as the Prime Minister said on “Marr”. When will it be fully resolved?
Public Health England sources say that they report the data when they get the data from test and trace. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the data could not be handed over to PHE because of the size of the Excel spreadsheet files? Was this an issue at one particular Lighthouse lab, or across all the Lighthouse labs? Why are critical databases in a national pandemic being hosted on Excel spreadsheets? Why are they not using specialist database software? The right hon. Gentleman likes to boast of his background in software development, so did he sign off this system? Was he aware of it? The Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for the integrity of pillar 2 testing data. His Department is the data controller, so he is ultimately responsible for this mess. It is a mess made up of fragmented systems passing data back and forth between his Department, PHE and outsourcing companies such as Serco and Deloitte, and it is costing us £12 billion. Surely now is the time not to renew Serco’s contract and instead give responsibility and resources to NHS labs and local public health teams to deliver testing and tracing.
The Secretary of State says that the data does not impact decisions that have been made about local restrictions, but areas already under restrictions such as  Bury, Hyndburn, Burnley, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle have seen increases as a result of this data. Will those areas and others under restrictions now be given extra help and resources to battle the virus? Infection rates in other parts of the country that are not under restrictions, such as Newark and Sherwood, are climbing higher with this new data, so should we expect more local restrictions this week?
The Secretary of State says that he is set to bring in a new three-tiered system to replace the confusing network that is in place. Will he update the House on what the new criteria will be for an area going into restriction and leaving restriction? So far, it has been a bit like “Hotel California”—you can check out, but you can never leave. Families deserve answers.
The Prime Minister told the House on 20 May that we would have a “world-beating” system in place by June. It is now October. The system is neither competent nor improving. Problems are getting worse. The Government are failing on the basics. When will they finally fix this mess?

Matthew Hancock: I will start by answering a couple of factual questions. As I said in my statement, as of 9 am this morning, 51% of these cases have been contacted by the contact tracing system, and their contacts are contacted immediately after the initial contact—concurrently.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the tiering system. Absolutely, extra support will go to areas where there is an increased number of cases. He asked about the criteria in the proposed approach. Of course, we cannot have fixed and specific criteria, because it depends on the nature of the outbreak. For instance, if there was an outbreak in one individual employer, we would not necessarily put the whole local area into local action. We try to make the intervention as targeted and as localised as possible, but sometimes it needs to be broad, as it is in the north-west and across large parts of the north-east. For example, the intervention in the west midlands covers four of the seven council areas of the west midlands, but not the other three, because that follows the data.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the particular IT system in question. The problem emerged in a PHE legacy system. We had already decided in July to replace this system, and I commissioned a new data system to replace the legacy one. Contracts were awarded in August, and the work on the upgrade is already under way. While, of course, we have to solve the problem immediately, we also need to ensure that we upgrade this system, and we have already put in place the contracts to ensure that that happens. In the meantime, it is critical that we work together to fix these issues, which were identified by PHE staff working hard late on Friday night. I want to thank the PHE staff who did so much work to resolve this issue over the weekend.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s final question, we need to ensure that we contact trace all those cases as soon as possible. In two days, we managed to get to 51% of them, and that work is ongoing.

Jeremy Hunt: The Health Secretary deserves enormous credit for the expansion of testing capacity that he has personally championed, but is not the underlying problem that the Lighthouse  laboratories have been, and will continue to be, overwhelmed by demand? Do we not need to think about the structures and, in particular, whether the responsibility for NHS staff testing and care home staff testing should be moved to hospital laboratories and universities, in the way that was advocated this morning by Sir David Nicholson, the former chief executive of the NHS? Sometimes it is tempting to think that, by dealing with the latest problem, we will solve the whole problem, but ahead of winter and the second wave, we need to think about whether these structures are right for what we have to deal with.

Matthew Hancock: The expansion of the NHS testing is, of course, critical as well. The system in question, where the problem was over this weekend, brings together the data both from the NHS systems and from the so-called pillar 2 systems. The challenge was in a system that integrates the two, rather than just on one side or the other, but my right hon. Friend makes a broader point, which is that as we expand the NHS’s capacity as part of the overall expansion of testing, we have to ensure that we use that capacity to best effect. In many parts of the NHS, increasingly, it is NHS testing capacity that is used for NHS staff testing. That system works well, because the test is local and convenient, and we are looking to expand in exactly the sort of direction that he outlines. I urge colleagues away from trying to bifurcate between the two systems. Essentially, we have a whole series of different ways to access a test, and we need to make sure that people get the tests that are easiest to access for them as much as possible.

Philippa Whitford: The delay in entering almost 16,000 covid cases into Government databases has resulted in last week’s case numbers being totally inaccurate. The Secretary of State says that the updated statistics would not have led to additional measures, but are there any new areas of heightened concern? PHE has blamed the problem on test result files being too big to load on to its central system. Was that, as has been suggested, due to the transfer of data between formats? If the underlying issue was due to the rapidly rising number of positive cases, why was that not anticipated or identified sooner? Can he be sure that something like this cannot happen again?
Just as importantly, this means that none of those cases was registered with the tracing system. While, as the Secretary of State says, people with a positive test got their result and, we hope, self-isolated, they did not get direct advice and they did not give the details of their contacts. From the Government’s data, people with covid report an average of three to four contacts each, so that would represent 50,000 to 60,000 contacts who were not identified and asked to isolate and therefore will have continued to spread the virus. While up to 10 days have lapsed and the opportunity to prevent onward spread may have been missed, the Secretary of State mentions that 51% of cases have been contacted, but on what timescale does he hope to reach all the contacts of those cases? Given that only about 60% of community contacts in England are currently reached, will he involve local authority public health teams in what is now a massive contact-tracing operation?

Matthew Hancock: On the core of the hon. Lady’s point, the assessment of the epidemic on the basis of the updated data is core to our approach to tackling the epidemic. The chief medical officer has analysed the new data, which we have now published—on coronavirus.data.gov.uk we can see the data, and that is on the corrected basis. Based on Joint Biosecurity Centre analysis, the CMO’s advice is that the assessment of the disease and its impact have not substantially changed. That is because the just under 16,000 cases were essentially evenly spread, so it has not changed the shape of the epidemic. It has changed the level, in terms of where we are finding the epidemic and in what sorts of groups.
The hon. Lady asks how many contacts have been contacted, as opposed to how many of the primary index cases. As I said, that is happening concurrently, so as soon as the index case has been contacted by Test and Trace and interviewed, the contacts are immediately contacted. As I said, we have got through 51% of the backlog over the weekend, and we have brought in more resources to complete that task.

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend and everyone in the House hopes that there will be a safe and effective vaccine available during the months ahead, but the head of the vaccines taskforce has said that she expects it to be available to only half of the population, concentrating on the over-50s and the most vulnerable. Is that the Secretary of State’s understanding? What are the implications for the other half of the population?

Matthew Hancock: This is a very important question. The vaccines taskforce has done incredibly important work in supporting the scientific development and manufacture of vaccines and in procuring vaccines—six different types of vaccine—from around the world. The work of deploying a vaccine is for my Department, working with the NHS and the armed forces, who are helping enormously with the logistical challenge, and we will take clinical advice on the deployment of the vaccine from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. My right hon. Friend the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee will know that 10 days ago the JCVI published a draft prioritisation, and it will update that as more data becomes clear from the vaccine. That is the Government’s approach: to take clinical advice from the JCVI.

Jeff Smith: The Secretary of State will know that south Manchester now has some of the highest infection rates in the country, but the figures are skewed by the very high rate among 17 to 21-year-olds. Many of those appear to be students who are confined to halls of residence, so the spread of the virus ought to be contained. May I therefore ask for an assurance from the Secretary of State that we will not have any extra local lockdown restrictions in Manchester as a result of figures that give a misleading picture of the extent of the virus in the wider community?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. The hon. Member makes a really important point. This is why I resist the temptation to set a simplistic threshold above which a certain level of action is taken. That is because there might be an incident—I mentioned that there might be such an  incident in a workplace, for instance; there might also be one in a halls of residence—where we get a very high number of cases, but if it is confined and not in the wider community we would not want to take action to restrict the social activity of the wider community. That has to be taken into account, along with the data on the number of cases and the positivity, because the number of tests that you put in affects that as well. We take all these things into account in asking both when an area needs to have more restrictions applied and when we can take an area out of restrictions, which of course is so important for everybody living there.

Bernard Jenkin: Nobody can possibly doubt my right hon. Friend’s utter commitment to doing his very best in these circumstances, or indeed the good will and hard work of his officials, but this is another incident that further undermines public confidence in the delivery of the Government’s covid response, and it is another example of where logistics and planning have let us down. Why cannot the Government learn from previous successes with the Nightingale hospitals and personal protective equipment? The military were brought in much more overtly to deal with the logistics, planning and delivery of those programmes, and they should be on test and trace as well.

Matthew Hancock: Of course they are involved, but this specific issue was in a PHE legacy computer system that we had already identified needed replacing; I had already commissioned the replacement of it and that replacement is currently being built. We knew that this was a system that needed replacing. That work is under way, at the same time as the remedial action to sort the problem more immediately.

Stella Creasy: We have lost a vital week in the fight against the spread of this virus in our country because of a problem with spreadsheets that the Health Secretary tells us was known about in July. We are paying £12 billion to these private companies to run this service, yet the Health Secretary has told us there are no penalties to them for poor performance. Who is going to get our money back, and who is going to take responsibility? Can the Health Secretary tell us: where on earth does the buck stop?

Matthew Hancock: Of course, I have come to this House to be clear and transparent to it and to the nation as to the nature of this particular problem. It is wrong constantly to be picking on a small number of the many, many cogs in the wheel of this system, which was a Public Health England legacy system—although that does not quite fit the hon. Lady’s narrative, it is the fact of the matter. I like her, and she and I have worked together in the past, including on issues such as this. She is normally incredibly reasonable and sensible, and I would be happy to ensure that she gets a full briefing on this one and to answer any further questions she has.

Miriam Cates: I thank my right hon. Friend, his Department and the many thousands of people who have worked so hard throughout the pandemic to make sure that our NHS has not been overwhelmed, but an inevitable consequence of this is that a large number of elective operations have  been delayed, including joint replacement surgery, which means that many people, including some of my constituents, are living in severe pain while waiting for procedures. Will he set out the NHS’s plan to make sure that people get this life-changing surgery as quickly as possible? Could some of the welcome additional resource that has been announced be used for post-op rehabilitation?

Matthew Hancock: The short answer is yes. My hon. Friend makes an important case. The restart of elective operations in the NHS is now proceeding apace. Of course, the more we can keep the virus under control, the easier that restart is. In any case, the NHS has done a huge amount of work over the summer to try to separate, as much as is possible, the NHS into “covid green” areas, where we have a high degree of confidence that there is no coronavirus, and “covid blue” areas, where there may be, so that people can get the long-term elective work done that is needed. That will include an expansion of rehabilitation. She might have seen that one of the 40 hospitals on the list that the Prime Minister announced was the DNRC—the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre— which is to be built just outside Loughborough.

Andrew Gwynne: The majority of Greater Manchester has been under local restrictions for more than two months, yet we now have some of the highest rates in England. The test and trace debacle once again shows that the national system is broken and that the Secretary of State’s measures are not working. He knows that the Greater Manchester authorities are keen to adopt a more localised approach, so if the newspaper reports are right that we are going to get a new tiered system, is this not the right time for the Government to give local areas control over test and trace systems, supported by extra financial resources?

Matthew Hancock: I half agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is important that we put more testing resources into the areas where case levels are high, and it is very important that we continue to strengthen the local engagement with the national system—I was talking to the Mayor of Greater Manchester about this only this morning. The challenge is that we also need the scale of the national system, so that where there is an outbreak we can bring huge amounts of resources to bear and make sure that we can really target the support, for instance, for contact tracing. So it is the combination of the local and the national that will get us through this.

James Davies: Since last Thursday and the Welsh Government’s local lockdown measures, half a million people in north Wales have not been allowed to cross often meaningless county council boundaries without a good reason to do so. That is causing huge disruption to livelihoods and wellbeing, so will my right hon. Friend outline his understanding of the scientific evidence for restrictions on travel such as this?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend raises a very important question, which I know is exercising people who live in north Wales and on the border. I am not going to criticise the Welsh Government, with whom we work closely, but what I will say is that, in England, when we choose to bring in measures restricting travel, we do it  with strong guidance at the moment rather than within the law. That is partly because there are all sorts of reasons why people might need to undertake a journey, so even where we advise people to minimise unnecessary travel, we do so with guidance and, in large part, people follow it.

Patrick Grady: The First Minister said on Friday that work was under way to improve the interoperability of the two test and trace apps. As they do not both work at the same time, as I experienced for myself, I wonder whether the Secretary of State can say a little bit more about how discussions between the Scottish and UK Governments are progressing and whether there is some sort of timescale for allowing the two apps to work together.

Matthew Hancock: I am delighted to have the chance to agree wholeheartedly with the First Minister of Scotland. We have been working closely together to ensure that the apps work together and interoperate in different parts of the United Kingdom. That upgrade is expected in the coming weeks. The two Governments are working very hard and very constructively on it.

Andrew Mitchell: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the way that he has worked so closely with us in the west midlands? He knows that, first and foremost, I am in favour of community solidarity and good sense, rather than legal diktat and Government fiat. Will he commend those universities that have already introduced student responsibility agreements as a way of furthering all of that? Will he bear in mind later on this week that our highly effective Mayor in the west midlands Andy Street, the Labour leader of Birmingham City Council and I are all of one mind, together with Justin Varney, the excellent head of public health in Birmingham, that the current level of infection rates mean that there should be no further changes there this week?

Matthew Hancock: I concur with my right hon. Friend on the importance of personal responsibility. We all have a responsibility in this. I have not heard of responsibility agreements with students, but that is a very sensible approach. I spoke to Andy Street this morning, and he made clear to me the need for national and local government to work together. That is working very effectively across the west midlands and across party lines, exactly as my right hon. Friend says. We must continue to do that as we monitor the developments and the data and do all we can to keep this virus under control.

Munira Wilson: Some local authorities are reporting that up to 500 unexpected positive cases have been downloaded to their system. Some are two weeks old and have had no contact at all from the national system. Directors of public health are angry and frustrated about the lack of joined-up working and the fact that the national system continues to break, despite the promises of both the Secretary of State and Baroness Harding to go for a more locally led approach. When will he start to work better with local authorities and have a more joined-up approach, harnessing their expertise?

Matthew Hancock: That is exactly what we are doing—absolutely. For instance, this morning I also spoke to Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, about how we continue to strengthen the join-up between the national and local approaches. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that that is incredibly important.

Luke Evans: Until we get a vaccine, the House knows that it is about following the rules of hands, face, space and get a test, but my right hon. Friend will also know that there are different types of test out there. Can he comment on the plans for future testing and on what updates there might be? We have heard talk of saliva testing, finger-prick testing or, possibly, that we may be able to allow individuals to deal with covid themselves.

Matthew Hancock: We are doing a huge amount of work to trial these next-generation tests at the same time as expanding the current testing capability. For instance, if we have to have a test, would it not be easier if we just needed some of our saliva rather than to having to put the swab all the way up our nose and down the back of our throat? These sorts of improvements in technology are in the pipeline and we are working incredibly hard to bring them to bear as soon as possible.

Liz Twist: The local authorities in the north-east have put forward a proposal to be able to provide a test and trace service regionally. After this latest fiasco, will the Secretary of State now agree to pick up that offer of local testing and tracing and fund the local authorities in the north-east to provide this?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. We put an extra £10 million into the local authorities in the north-east to support contact tracing and we are also stitching together the data feeds between the national system and each of the individual local authorities in the north-east. We will keep working hard on that project. I will keep listening to the needs of the local authorities in the north-east and across the rest of the country.

Neil O'Brien: It is good that we are now testing more than other countries and good that we have a quarter more testing capacity than we had in August, and we are very grateful to the staff of the mobile testing centres that we now have in Oadby and Wigston, but what is my right hon. Friend doing to further drive up testing capacity so that we can stay ahead of this?

Matthew Hancock: That is the subject of a huge amount of Government effort, working with the NHS and with the private sector on both the current technology and the new technology. I will just make a point about Oadby and Wigston in my hon. Friend’s constituency. People say, “Where is a local lockdown having an effect?” Well, the answer is in Oadby and Wigston, where the case rate has come down because the good people of Oadby and Wigston have followed the locally applied rules and that has brought the virus back under control. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the leadership that he has shown there, along with the leaders of the county council and of the district council, who have worked really hard together to make this happen.

Karen Buck: Despite all the billions that have been spent on testing, we learned at the end of last week that the testing hours in London fell by 43% on the week before. There is also a staggering variation in capacity. My own borough, Westminster, has one of the lowest testing rates in London. Given that the limited capacity means that testing is being directed to those with the highest rates of infection, is there not a very real risk that this will mean that we do not know what is going on accurately across the country because areas that are not getting enough testing are not showing transmission, and therefore we cannot make good decisions? When will we have the testing capacity to allow us to make the right decisions for our people and our economy?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady makes a really important case. First, as she implies, we obviously have to put the testing capacity into the areas with the biggest outbreaks to tackle those outbreaks. I think everybody understands that. At the same time, we have to increase testing capacity, and we are doing that. But thirdly, if an area has lower testing than another area, we have to make sure that we take that into account when we look at how serious the problem is. We do that in two ways. The first is the positivity rate—what proportion of tests come through positive—and the second is the survey data, particularly the Office for National Statistics survey, which shows that rates in London are higher than in some parts of the rest of the country, such as the south-west, the south-east and East Anglia, but not as high as in the midlands and the north of England, or indeed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have to look at the surveys and the positivity, as well as the basic case rate.

Alun Cairns: I recognise my right hon. Friend’s focus, attention and efforts in responding to the ever-changing covid situation. Does he recognise that there are currently myriad different forms of restrictions across different parts of the country and that can become confusing? What consideration has he given to simplifying the approach to the restrictions? In doing so, would he ensure that any simplification applies to every part of the UK?

Matthew Hancock: The short answer is yes. The proposals that we are working through and that I will bring to this House are to have a more simplified approach to the local action that we took. We have shared that approach with the devolved Administrations. Indeed, I have discussed it with Vaughan Gething, my opposite number in Wales. It is the sort of approach that would simplify matters further were it undertaken across the UK, but that is a decision for the Welsh Government in Wales, and for the other devolved Administrations, because public health decisions are devolved. I urge the Welsh Government to continue working with us. I urge my right hon. Friend, who is a very strong voice in Wales, to try to persuade the Welsh Government to take that sort of approach across the whole of the Principality.

Nigel Evans: I call Jonathan Edwards.

Jonathan Edwards: Diolch, Mr Deputy Speaker. Increasing evidence indicates that so-called long covid is impacting around  10% of those contracting the virus. What assessments have been undertaken of the potential long-term social and economic impacts of long covid, as well as of the lasting pressures on health and care systems?

Matthew Hancock: Mr Deputy Speaker, we have had three voices of Wales in a row, including yours, Sir. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman from Plaid Cymru. The impact of long covid can be very debilitating for many months, and some people who caught covid in the initial peak still suffer from long-covid symptoms. We have instituted more research, and we have started—in England at least—a long covid service in the NHS. Just today, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published an approach to assessing long covid, which I would recommend to the hon. Gentleman. That approach will clearly need continued effort so that we can make sure that people who suffer from long covid get the support they need.

Cat Smith: On Friday, I and my constituents learned via local media and press reports that there are Government plans to close the hospitals in Lancaster and Preston, with plans to replace them with a super-hospital, which would have obvious implications for other Lancashire hospitals, such as Chorley and Blackpool Victoria. Closing two hospitals in Lancashire to build one super-hospital does not make it easier for my constituents or the people of Lancashire to access vital medical care. Does the Secretary of State believe, as I do, that the next time we hear a Minister talk about building 40 new hospitals, it should come with a health warning that that also means closing 80 hospitals?

Nigel Evans: Order. Before I invite the Secretary of State to answer that—I will give some flexibility—please make sure that your questions relate to the statement that has just been given.

Matthew Hancock: As well as responding to coronavirus, we need to ensure that we invest in the physical infrastructure of the NHS. I would just correct the hon. Lady, because the proposal in her part of the world is to consult on whether one or two hospitals is the right approach and the right thing for her part of the world. I encourage her to welcome the massive investment in the NHS in Lancashire, and across the country, which will improve care right across this land.

Felicity Buchan: I thank my right hon. Friend for the huge investment in west London hospitals announced on Friday. With regards to coronavirus, should we not focus as much, if not more, on the hospitalisation rate, as opposed to the incidence rate? Often, people do not have symptoms, or have very mild symptoms, and, certainly in London, the hospitalisation rate is a fraction of what it was in April.

Matthew Hancock: Of course, the hospitalisation rate is an important factor that we look at, and it is a concern. Unfortunately, the latest hospitalisation rate has risen to 422, which is the highest since the middle of June. Hospitalisations tend to lag behind the number of cases, because people catch the disease and some, sadly, are later hospitalised. We therefore keep a close eye on the hospitalisation rate, and the bad news is that it is, sadly, going up.

Bill Esterson: The six councils in the Liverpool city region face a budget shortfall of £150 million. On Thursday, the Health Secretary announced £7 million to be split between the Liverpool city region and three further councils—a drop in the ocean compared with £150 million. He knows that local professionals have solutions to the problems of test, trace and isolate. He has shown that there are not just millions but billions of pounds available for Serco, Deloitte, Compass and friends. So when will he invest in local public health teams and sort out the mess of test, trace and isolate once and for all?

Matthew Hancock: As I have said, we have been putting the extra money into local councils, as well as using, frankly, all the tools at our disposal, public or private sector—whether people are in the NHS, PHE, a local council or a firm that can bring a capability to bear on this problem. It is one big team effort.

Tobias Ellwood: Talking of tools at my hon. Friend’s disposal, Bournemouth University stands ready to help with lab testing. However, it is covid testing in schools that I would like to address. Today the rules state that the entire year group must stay out of school for 14 days if one of the pupils in it tests positive. That causes huge disruption not only to learning, but to working parents, who have to provide childcare. With better testing systems now in place, please can we review this 14-day rule that sends entire year groups home, so that we can keep children both safe and in school?

Matthew Hancock: I would love to be able to review that, but only when it is clinically safe to do so. However, I would just point out to both my right hon. Friend and also to all those in education who are following this, including in schools across Bournemouth, that schools do not necessarily have to send the whole year group home; they have to send the bubble home. By ensuring that the way in which they operate keeps people safe, schools can ensure that bubbles are smaller than the whole year group. Many schools do that. The first immediate port of call would be to try to get the bubble smaller within a school, and then we should of course work together on other ways to solve the problem.

Robbie Moore: I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge in ensuring that we have enough tests for everyone who needs them, and it is incredibly encouraging that testing capacity has increased by 25% since the middle of August. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he continues to work to get testing capacity up even further, so that venues such as Victoria Hall in Keighley can meet demand?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, that is absolutely right. Testing capacity now stands at over 300,000. We are on track to reach 500,000 by the end of this month. I know what a goal to expand testing capacity feels like. This is a tough and difficult challenge, but the team are rising to it. My hon. Friend has made the case for Keighley so strongly during this pandemic, and he continues to do so in terms of the extra testing capacity needed there now.

Alison McGovern: However basic this data error might have been, the consequences are very serious. However, I say to those civil servants  working night and day to get this right: the responsibility for this is not on you; it is on those who guarantee the checks to the system. As the Secretary of State has indicated, that is him. With that in mind, can he avail himself of any data process flow charts or other diagrams relating to the processing of this data, and all data quality assurance policies and processes, and put those in the public domain? Yes or no?

Matthew Hancock: I am very happy to work with the team to see what we can put in the public domain. However, the challenge of a maximum file size error is that it would not necessarily have appeared on that sort of flow chart and, given the massive expansion of the availability of data storage over recent years, would not, I expect, be a feature of the system that is already in train to replace the one that caused the problem this weekend. However, I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Lady has said about the civil servants in the Department and the staff at PHE, who are working so hard during this pandemic.

Bill Wiggin: My right hon. Friend gave an excellent answer to our right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). The JCVI report is indeed most helpful and reassuring because it prioritises the vulnerable, the elderly and, of course, our health workers. However, it last met on 1 September, and the report is dated 23 September. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that if there is more information on the progress of the vaccine, that committee will meet again and we will get another excellent report?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely. People are asking questions about how the vaccine will be rolled out and of course I understand why people are so interested in that. We will of course protect the most vulnerable first and we will do that on the basis of clinical advice. The JCVI brings together the best clinicians in this area and it meets very regularly. Decisions of the JCVI will not be on the critical path to the roll-out of the vaccine—I have been assured of that.

Debbie Abrahams: One of my 15-year-old constituents had a covid test over a week ago, and in spite of chasing, is still none the wiser as to whether she has covid or not. Not only is she having to self-isolate, but her mum, a nurse, is having to take the precaution of self-isolating, something she says her ward can ill afford. On top of that, last month, the time taken to get test results back from the national Test and Trace programme to Oldham’s public health team, to enable them to trace the cases that the national programme is failing to get in touch with, was 12 days—12 days, not 24 hours. Will the Health Secretary please tell my constituent how many of the 16,000 or so lost test results were from Oldham, and how many contacts—not cases— have not yet been traced?

Matthew Hancock: The good news is that the turnaround time of test results has been coming down. I would love to take up the case of the individual who has not had a result back, as the hon. Lady has described, because that is rare: the majority of cases now come back the next day. I will specifically look into turnaround times in Oldham, because an average of 12 days seems a lot longer than I expected, and I will make sure to get back to the hon. Lady at the appropriate opportunity.

Holly Mumby-Croft: From speaking to local people, it has become clear that there are still concerns about routine appointments—GP appointments and, increasingly, routine dental care—which are obviously important for preventing problems down the line. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what plans he has to ensure that over these potentially bumpy next few months, people are still able to get those appointments?

Matthew Hancock: For all my huge enthusiasm for technology, it is obviously critical for people to have a face-to-face appointment in primary care at their GP’s surgery, if one is needed. We have made it clear that every GP practice should offer those face-to-face appointments in a covid-secure way where they are needed. The vast majority of GPs are doing incredible work, and offering the public the service and the vocation that they went into medicine for. If my hon. Friend has specific examples, I will be happy to look into them, but overall, it is so important that we keep primary care running.

Nigel Evans: Mr Barry Sheerman.

Barry Sheerman: Mr Deputy Speaker, my former student—thank you. I say to the Secretary of State that we are talking about human beings working systems, and I warn him that there will be more glitches. Technology means glitches, so I am worried about him, because we have a long, hard winter ahead. Does he agree with me that what we are doing in Huddersfield, in Kirklees—working together as a council, a local university and a local health trust, putting party political issues to one side—is what we must do this winter? We have to beat this virus, and we have to work together in order to do that.

Matthew Hancock: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said.

Aaron Bell: First, I welcome the new centre at Keele University campus in my constituency, which opened last Friday, and I thank my right hon. Friend’s Department for that. Secondly, he may be aware of the article in The Times on Saturday that suggested people were having difficulty accessing tests at the centre in Newcastle-under-Lyme itself, which had been walk-up in August but now requires booking. The article suggests that there is plenty of capacity at the centre, but not yet enough at the labs, so could he confirm that this Government are still committed to half a million tests a day by the end of this month?

Matthew Hancock: We are committed and on track to the delivery of half a million tests by the end of this month. We have capacity at over 300,000 now. I saw the article in The Times. Of course, one of the good things is that in Newcastle-under-Lyme, the case rate had come right down. We had a walk-in centre because it was an outbreak area, and it stopped being an outbreak area because everybody in Newcastle-under-Lyme did their bit and brought the case rate down. That is a good thing, of course, but it does mean that we have to make sure that the testing is targeted at where it is most needed across the country. What I really want to do is have that extra capacity that we are building so everybody everywhere can get it.

Barbara Keeley: In Salford, the case numbers have now risen above 250 per 100,000. As well as this case uploads programme issue today, our local contact tracing programme is having to wait on average four days for data from the national system, and in the worst cases seven to nine days. That is creating unacceptable delay to contact tracing. In August, Baroness Harding said that we would have a contact tracing system that was “local by default”, so what is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that data gets to local authorities in a timely way so that it can be followed up by genuinely local contact tracing systems under the control of our local directors of public health?

Matthew Hancock: This is the goal, as the hon. Member sets out, and reducing the times for those transfers is very important, and making sure that the transfers happen effectively and in an automated and cohesive way is very important. But the approach that she sets out of using the national system to do the first attempts at contacting people—to contact those whom it is easy to contact—and then use the local system to contact those where it is more difficult, and where boots on the ground can help, is the approach that we are taking to make sure that we can get that join-up as effectively as possible.

Jane Stevenson: I would like to thank the Secretary of State for working so constructively with Wolverhampton City Council when it requested some limited local restrictions around households visiting other households in their own homes. As we move forward to get the virus down, can we give further advice on how we all can limit transmissions within home settings, especially where we have a vulnerable family member?

Matthew Hancock: It is so important that people follow this guidance, and of course the first principle for everybody needs to be “Hands, face, space” and keeping a distance, if possible, within households if somebody tests positive. The other thing not to underestimate is the importance of cleaning, because this virus passes on through the air, but it also passes on on surfaces, and we should all—all—be aware of that.

Dan Jarvis: It was good to see the Secretary of State earlier today, and I very much hope that he will keep talking to local and regional leaders. As the Secretary of State well knows, the winter months are always the toughest for patients and for staff. This one could prove to be the most challenging that our NHS has ever faced. So can I ask the Secretary of State to guarantee that the NHS will have the funding resources needed to get it through this winter?

Matthew Hancock: I welcome the very constructive approach that the hon. Gentleman takes in his local role as well as in this House. Of course, we have put in the extra funding that the NHS needs this winter. We are expanding over 140 emergency departments, because emergency departments need more space so there can be social distancing. We have also put in funding so that we can continue the work on electives, even though it is more difficult, and on infection control—and, of course, as much discussed, on testing. I look forward very much to working with him further as we try to control this virus.

Andrew Selous: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the rule of six and curfew are based on the evidence of what worked in Belgium, and will he continue to provide the whole country with the evidence of what has worked internationally so we can take the whole country with us to defeat the pandemic?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is that we have got to learn from things that have worked in other countries. We are constantly looking around the world as well as at the domestic science. I am very happy to work with him to see what further we can publish in terms of the assessments that are made and then presented to us as Ministers to make decisions on that constitute that scientific advice.

Emma Lewell-Buck: It is clear that local lockdown areas should have control of test and trace; yet at the weekend the Prime Minister was adamant that it was not failures with his “world-beating” system that have had an impact on our local increases, but that my constituents are just undisciplined in following his confusing and incoherent messaging. Does the Secretary of State share the Prime Minister’s insulting view?

Matthew Hancock: It is incredibly important that all of us, as leaders in our local area, reiterate the public health advice that people should follow the rules, which are put in place for a reason. Nobody wants to have these rules in place, but they are important to keep us all safe.

Selaine Saxby: I recognise the scale of the challenge in increasing testing capacity. In Devon, it has increased by over 40% since the start of September. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that work continues to rapidly get that capacity up even further, so that constituents in my North Devon constituency are able to get tested?

Matthew Hancock: Yes.

Richard Thomson: In the Secretary of State’s statement, he said that 51% of the cases have now been contacted a second time for contact tracing purposes. Can he clarify how many people are still waiting to be contacted for the first time, and how can he say with any confidence that the notification process for those individuals has not been delayed?

Matthew Hancock: All of the 15,000 have been contacted for the first time.

Tim Farron: In the Secretary of State’s statement, he spoke with pride about the Prime Minister’s announcement on Friday of the additional capital programme for hospitals. In Cumbria, we met that announcement with some dismay. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said, there is a proposal to close the Preston and Lancaster hospitals and merge them into a single hospital somewhere in between. Does the Secretary of State realise that that will mean even longer journeys for acute care for people from the South Lakes? Will he have a word with the Prime Minister, and drop that dangerous proposal from  the consultation, so that people in south Cumbria do not have to make dangerous journeys for emergency care?

Nigel Evans: Order. That was only touched on briefly in the statement, which was a covid update. It would have been really nice if the hon. Member could have asked his question in relation to the covid update, which is what the statement was mainly about.

Matthew Hancock: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As part of the coronavirus response across Lancashire and Cumbria, we want to ensure that the NHS is prepared for the long term, so we are putting a huge investment into Lancashire and the new hospitals in Lancashire. The hon. Gentleman almost mentioned that there is a consultation on whether to have two replacements or one. I entirely understand that he takes a position within that consultation, but it is worth explaining that there is a consultation on whether to replace them with two hospitals or one. There will rightly be full public engagement, with his constituents, those of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), and potentially yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, on which is the right approach. However, this is a massive investment in the local NHS that everybody should welcome.

Peter Bone: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House yet again to update the House on covid matters and health matters. He is right, of course, to concentrate on covid, but we also have to worry about people who do not have covid diseases and need treatment. In north Northamptonshire, it is welcome that a Boris hospital will be built just off the A14, which will be state of the art and will replace the town centre one of Kettering. Will the Secretary of State tell me when it will be built, and when it will be finished?

Matthew Hancock: As part of the coronavirus response, we must ensure that we keep our physical NHS up to date, and we will build the new hospital in Kettering. We will complete it before 2030 at the latest, and I very much hope a long time before then. I want to say how much my hon. Friend has done to work towards delivering it, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Corby (Tom Pursglove) nearby. It has been a team effort, and I was thrilled to be able to let them know that this is happening, and it will happen before the decade is out.

Nigel Evans: There will be lots of opportunities to question the Secretary of State about the new hospitals at a more appropriate time.

Richard Burgon: In the past 14 days, New Zealand has had 35 coronavirus cases, China, Hong Kong and Macau 260, Vietnam 28, Thailand 84 and Australia 238. The UK has had 108,000 cases. Our coronavirus strategy is failing. Others show we can fix this and get the test and trace system our people need. So will the Secretary of State do what is needed: kick out Serco, sack Dido Harding, and put the billions of pounds wasted on private companies that are failing into our NHS, which will do the job properly?

Matthew Hancock: No.

Kate Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hospitals such as Queen’s Hospital in Burton should be doing everything they can to reintroduce access for birth partners of pregnant women during all stages of labour, and that this should be treated as a priority?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I do. Coronavirus brings many challenges, and making sure that we have good infection control not just during childbirth, but during the meetings that are often so critical during pregnancy, is very important. We changed the guidelines a couple of weeks ago, and I know that everybody across the NHS is working their hardest to get the best outcome, and I hope we get there soon.

Neil Coyle: It is nine months since the World Health Organisation first warned of the risks covid posed. My constituents in Southwark deserve to know that the Government are trying to keep them safe and that they can get tested or traced if needed; why no other Government in the world have experienced such problems with Excel spreadsheets, and why the Secretary of State will not take responsibility for this latest world-beating incompetence.

Matthew Hancock: Funnily enough, when I speak to my colleagues from across the world we find we often have many of the same challenges, including the need to get the testing capacity up, and the hon. Gentleman may not believe me, but occasionally they ask me what we have done to extend testing capacity quite as much as we have. I am very happy to explain that to both him and his constituents and to the rest of the House.

Jacob Young: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his statement today does not impact on the decision to keep Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton, and Darlington out of local lockdown restrictions, and does he also see that more testing surely means more positive tests, so should we now be looking at the numbers of people admitted to hospital instead of covid case numbers before considering further lockdown restrictions in local authority areas?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes an important point. First, as the chief medical officer has confirmed, this issue does not affect the decisions taken last week, but of course we look at all those decisions each week, and, as my hon. Friend knows, we take as localised an approach as possible, so that rather than bringing in measures for the whole of Teesside, we brought in measures for Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, where the local councils had called for them—whether or not they mentioned that afterwards. We should keep working together and making sure we look at the data—the hospitalisation figures of course, as well as the test positivity, and of course the number of cases. Hospitalisation data is important, but it follows with a lag, so we have to look at the early indicators as well.

Rosie Cooper: Constituents in West Lancashire are worried: constituents of mine were told they tested positive on Friday and they still have not been contacted by Track and Trace or the restaurant they work in. They worry that this is increasing the danger of the spread of covid. They are also worried that the stockpile of drugs held in the event of a no-deal  Brexit may be being reduced because of this pandemic. Can the Secretary of State update us on both those points?

Matthew Hancock: On the first point, for all those who test positive, receiving that result brings a duty under law to self-isolate. That is the primary way we keep people safe and that has worked. As I said in my statement, as of 9 o’clock this morning 51% of those had been contacted for contact tracing purposes. I very much hope the constituent the hon. Lady mentions will be contacted very soon, if not already. On the final question she asks, of course we have been replenishing the stockpiles of drugs that we used up during the peak. That has been a very important part of the work over the summer, as we prepare to leave the end of the transition period at the end of this year.

Richard Holden: I thank the Secretary of State for his continued engagement with me and other colleagues from all sides of the House throughout this crisis, and also for our new Boris hospital coming to Shotley Bridge. My constituents have three concerns still, one of which is the speed of getting tests back. I know there has been some improvement recently, but will he update us on that? They are also still concerned about the 10 pm restrictions and about clarity on how we get out of local lockdown measures. Will he inform us a bit more about that?

Matthew Hancock: The coronavirus crisis is not easy for any Health Secretary, but it was a joy to be able to call my hon. Friend and tell him that we are rebuilding Shotley Bridge Hospital on the site of the old steelworks. It will be absolutely fantastic, like a phoenix in the heart of County Durham. It is a joy to work with my hon. Friend, who asks important questions about coronavirus. As he says, we are reducing the turnaround times for test results. We will continue to work to try to make them as fast as possible.

Emma Hardy: Will the Secretary of State please outline what measures will be put in place to ensure that all family members of residents in care homes can continue to see their families and loved ones over the coming months, including whether guarantee PPE and testing for families will be guaranteed?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady has taken a close and repeated interest in this very important subject. We have put in place updated guidance on visiting care homes, which is a very important and sensitive balance we need to strike, working with local directors of public health. I cannot give the guarantee she seeks in all areas because it is a matter for the judgment of the director of public health locally, because in some parts of the country the virus is more prevalent than elsewhere. I wish I could, but I cannot. I look forward to continuing to work with her to try to get that balance right.

Tom Randall: I welcome the news that the Queen’s Medical Centre and City Hospital will be rebuilt in Nottingham. On PPE, the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), told the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in July that in the early days of the pandemic the Government
“went from supplying PPE to about 250 or 260 hospitals…to 58,000 organisations”
such was the pace of change. With the measures the Government have recently taken, and with 32 billion pieces of PPE, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government are now in a much better position to deal with PPE should there be any increase in cases as we go into the winter?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely. The PPE distribution system was described by the head of the armed forces as the biggest logistical exercise he had seen in his professional lifetime. It has been a mammoth effort to get it into decent shape, but it is now in decent shape, I am very glad to say. We have been preparing to solve not only the current problems, but preparing in case of a second peak. We have said that PPE will be free to NHS institutions and care homes for the remainder of this financial year to remove that worry. I strongly support what my hon. Friend said about the warm welcome to the rebuilding of the QMC and City Hospital in Nottingham. It is a place I know well from my family, many of whom are from Nottingham. It is really great that we are able to put in that huge investment.

Lucy Powell: I am reassured by the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) that Manchester will not be subject to further restrictions as a result of the contained outbreaks in halls of residence. However, Manchester residents have now been unable to see their loved ones for more than two months—since our rates were less than 50 per 100,000, and they are now 10 times higher than that—and I strongly reject the suggestion that this is somehow because of our own personal actions. Is it not time for a rethink? Blanket, wide local restrictions just are not working according to their own objectives. If we are looking at another six months, this is no life for people to be living and is not sustainable or desirable.

Matthew Hancock: There is a challenge where case rates are going up sharply. Of course, the virus does pass on through social contact. We need to work with the local councils to bring the virus under control in Manchester, as in other parts of the country where it is rising sharply.

Alec Shelbrooke: On Saturday, my wife and I got our annual flu jabs. I hope you will indulge me for just a second, Mr Deputy Speaker, while I say that the GPs and nurses at our local surgery are doing an outstanding job. It was pre-booked and within two minutes we were in and out.
I do not want to make you cry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but unfortunately I suffer quite badly with vaccines—when I had my yellow fever vaccine I thought my end had come. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people need to be aware of some of the side-effects of vaccines and be crystal clear on the symptoms of coronavirus, so that once they have had their vaccines, they may not necessarily seek covid tests? People should be absolutely clear on the three symptoms of covid.

Matthew Hancock: It is too early yet to set out the clinical details of vaccines, other than to say that we have a draft of the priority order for the distribution of a covid vaccine and that we will not bring in a covid  vaccine—and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency would not license it—unless we are confident that it is safe. It is at that point, when we know more about the clinical details, that will be able to say more about its effective roll out.

Feryal Clark: After our broken test and trace system and the failure to put a protective ring around care homes, and after the recent and preventable outbreaks in universities and the ultimately unnecessary restructuring of Public Health England, the chaos this weekend is symbolic of the way the Government have handled the pandemic. Does the Secretary of State agree that these are his failures and only his alone?

Matthew Hancock: Responding to a pandemic is an enormously challenging task. Thankfully, it is a massive team effort, and it is one in which the whole country can be engaged because we all have a part to play.

Bob Blackman: London consists of 32 boroughs plus the City of London and covers a population of around 8 million people. We are told that infection rates are going up in each of the London boroughs, but some are much higher than others. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider, when he needs to introduce lockdown procedures, doing so on a borough-by-borough basis and not inflicting unnecessary restrictions on the whole of London, which would be counterproductive in terms of delivering downward pressure on the increased case load. It would potentially bring the economy to a halt and affect the way Parliament works.

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Getting the right geography for any particular action is an important and difficult consideration. Last week’s example, when we took two of the Teesside boroughs into local action but not the other three, demonstrates that we are absolutely prepared to do as my hon. Friend wishes for London. On the other hand, on the same day we took the whole of the Liverpool city region into the same measures, because that was what was appropriate there. We have to take into account travel patterns and socialising patterns, as well as the pure data from the epidemiology and the number of cases, but it is absolutely something that we look at because we want to minimise the number of restrictions that are in place, subject to the need to keep the virus under control.

Grahame Morris: The Secretary of State is full of bravado and bluster, despite a catalogue of mistakes and regular statements. When the truth is spread thinly, people start to see through it. We hear the expression “world-beating test and trace system”—how would Ricky Tomlinson describe it?

Matthew Hancock: I don’t know.

Elliot Colburn: May I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend for the £500 million for Epsom and St Helier hospitals and for taking very quick action after I asked in this House for additional testing capacity in Carshalton and Wallington? Not long after I asked him, we heard that three more sites may open in my borough, which is very welcome. Obviously, those new sites will need the testing  capacity to be able to cope, so can he assure me that we will continue the work to get that capacity up as quickly as possible and into boroughs such as Sutton?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. We are bringing more testing capacity into Sutton. We have opened more testing sites in Sutton. I can tell the House that the average distance travelled to a test has now fallen to 4.3 miles from over 6 miles three weeks ago. We are also bringing a new hospital to my hon. Friend’s area—a massive half-a-billion-pound investment in the NHS, showing that we are always prepared to protect the NHS for the long term.

Dawn Butler: Various companies have multimillion-pound contracts, and it is important that we understand their motivation to succeed. Does Serco get paid for voided test results—yes or no?

Matthew Hancock: The motivation of my whole team, no matter how they are employed or contracted, is to beat this virus, and we are working together to do that.

Heather Wheeler: I thank my right hon. Friend for his important statement. In South Derbyshire we have world-renowned laboratories locally, and my constituents have asked me to ask: what steps is he taking to increase the number of labs available to process tests, so that we can continue to increase testing capacity as quickly as possible?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is right to ask that question, because we are expanding the number of labs as we expand the number of tests. I know that there is great capability in Derbyshire that can be brought to bear as part of this big team effort.

Geraint Davies: As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, people in lockdown in Wales are not allowed to leave their county for fear of spreading the disease. For instance, people in Newport, where there are 50 cases per 100,000 people, cannot go to Aberystwyth. But people in Manchester, where there are 500 cases per 100,000 people—10 times the number—can go to Aberystwyth and elsewhere in Wales and spread the disease. To stop this spreading of disease, will the Secretary of State restrict travel out of locked-down areas in England? If not, will he accept that it would be a good idea for people arriving in low-risk areas in Wales to quarantine, or is he happy for the disease to spread without restriction?

Matthew Hancock: The challenge is that the primary transmission of the disease is between households and households mixing with one another. The approach that we have taken in England since we came out of the initial full-blown lockdown has been to put travel restrictions in guidance rather than law, because we feel that that is the most appropriate thing to do. That is not the approach being taken in Wales, but that is how we are currently handling it in England.

Kenny MacAskill: It was a political, not a health, decision to pursue a private sector route for testing. Scotland has chosen differently, but there are concerns that ongoing capacity issues in England and Wales will have an impact on Scotland.  Will the Secretary of State confirm that Scots will not be prejudiced by the Tory Government’s preference for private profit over public health?

Matthew Hancock: Quite the contrary; the UK-wide testing system delivers enormous numbers of tests to people in Scotland, and I know from having studied it that people in Scotland are really grateful for the fact that we work together, with the UK Government delivering testing in Scotland alongside the Scottish NHS delivering testing in Scotland. It is that sort of coming together that people look for during a time like this.

Jonathan Gullis: In Stoke-on-Trent, we were delighted to come off the national watchlist as an area of concern after hard work from Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Staffordshire County Council and, most importantly, the people of Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke adhering to the public health messaging. Additionally, we have the regional test centre that Councillor Abi Brown and I successfully lobbied my right hon. Friend for and two incoming walk-in test centres in Stoke-on-Trent. Will my right hon. Friend commit further by giving additional funding to help Stoke-on-Trent City Council and the Royal Stoke University Hospital to deliver increased testing capacity for the thousands of local health and social care workers across Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire?

Matthew Hancock: As well as the expansion of testing that my hon. Friend mentions, I can tell him that we are expanding NHS testing capacity within Stoke, and we are putting in the extra funding to deliver that. This man stands up for Stoke so strongly, and he has been making the case clearly and powerfully, so I am glad to be able to tell him that we can do that.

Stephen Doughty: Vaccines have come up a number of times during the statement today. Will the Secretary of State be absolutely clear: are there shortages and recalls of flu vaccine going on at the moment? I have certainly been told by a major pharmacy company that there are, and the Royal College of General Practitioners wrote to me yesterday mentioning delays of one month. He did not answer the question from the Chair of the Health Committee. Kate Bingham was very clear that vaccinating the whole population was just not going to happen. Was she correct to say that?

Matthew Hancock: On the latter point, we take our advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and it will provide the clinical advice. That clinical advice has not been provided yet, because the data has not yet been provided to it in full from the trials that are ongoing. I could not be clearer about that. The Government’s advice on the distribution of the vaccine for clinical purposes comes from the JCVI, and I urge the hon. Gentleman and all others to read its report from 10 days ago. It was an excellent report.
When it comes to the flu vaccine, we have enough to vaccinate every single person who is in a priority group over the age of 65, those who are clinically vulnerable and the children who are eligible for it. We are rolling that out over the forthcoming months. On Sunday, I spoke to the president of the Royal College of GPs, and we discussed the need to make it clear to GPs and pharmacists—they are at the core of the roll-out—and  also to the general public that we have enough vaccine. We are rolling it out over the months to come. It is very important that people come forward, and I am really glad they are doing so in record numbers this year, but it does take several weeks to get that done.

Theresa Villiers: The House should recognise that going from 2,000 tests a day in March to around 250,000 now—hopefully we will see that double over the next few weeks—is a significant achievement, but can the Health Secretary provide any reassurance to sectors such as travel, theatre and events, which are in so much difficulty? Can we use mass testing to help them open up again?

Matthew Hancock: My right hon. Friend makes a really important and heartfelt plea. I have been working with the travel sector and discussing the matter with them. While the testing capacity is, as it is now, on the current technology, we have to use it for the clinically prioritised groups, but of course we would all love to see when further expansion can mean that we can use testing more broadly in the sorts of ways that she describes.

Kevan Jones: Since the beginning of this crisis, the Government’s approach has been one of central control. We are fixated on the number of tests, but is the real issue not the number of tests, but what we do with the information we get from them? Before the new restrictions were applied to County Durham, NHS Test and Trace took testing capacity out of County Durham. Is it not now time to just admit that the national system has failed? What is needed is to give responsibility directly to directors of public health, with the resources to do not only the testing, but the more important thing, which is tracing, which they are more able to do than people in national call centres?

Matthew Hancock: We put in money, including into the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, to do exactly that—to make sure that there is local support. He says we should follow a localised approach. That is exactly what we did in the north-east: when the seven north-east councils came to national Government, they asked for a set of interventions to be put in place, and we did that. That is exactly the sort of approach that we ought to be taking, and we will continue to do so.

Mike Wood: The number of people in Dudley who have been triaged for coronavirus testing has halved in the past couple of weeks. It is hard to believe that this is down to reduced demand. What  progress is my right hon. Friend making in expanding capacity, so that my constituents can get testing readily when they need it?

Matthew Hancock: We are expanding testing. However, I would add that in this House two or three weeks ago, the big item of discussion was excess demand for testing. We put out public health messaging to explain that people should come forward for a test if they have symptoms of coronavirus, but not if they do not, and the number of people without symptoms coming forward has fallen since then. As a result, we can get the testing capacity we have to the people who need it. That has been a success, and I thank everyone in the country who listened to those messages. We have worked hard to increase communications about it, and the demand has been moving in the right direction.

Jason McCartney: Covid case data is used to decide which areas are in local lockdown, with the impact on hospitality businesses and families visiting loved ones in care homes, and the detrimental effect on the mental health of those missing out on social interactions. Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that the data used to put us in local restrictions is up to date and accurate, and that when we start to get cases down, and as soon as it is safe, we can come out of local restrictions?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We are of course vigilant and we have to bring in local action in some cases, as we have in his area, but we will also bring areas out of restrictions when it is safe to do so, as we did in his area, although unfortunately it then had to go back in again. I would prefer it if places did not come in, out and back in again in that way, but my view is that that is better than leaving the measures in place when they are not needed.
We publish the data, which has now been updated to take into account the issues we had over the weekend, and we will have in place the minimum interventions that are necessary to keep the virus suppressed and to protect the economy, education and the NHS as much as possible until the vaccine arrives. That is the strategy, which is true in Colne Valley and true right across the country, and I look forward to working with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and colleagues across the House to help the country to get through this.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for updating the House on covid-19 measures and for answering questions for the last hour and a half. Thank you very much.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June.)

Point of Order

David Davis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is no provision on today’s Order Paper for debating the programme motion, which is listed to be moved forthwith at 10 pm. That motion proposes that the further stages of the Bill—Committee, Report and Third Reading—be taken in single session on Thursday week. The Bill we are debating today is described in the House of Commons briefing document as raising
“one of the most profound issues which can face a democratic society governed by the rule of law”,
quoting not some left-wing non-governmental organisation but the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The last time the Government rushed a security Bill through in this way, I and others had a challenge in the court of law; the Government lost and had to rewrite the Bill. We do not want to do that again, so what can we do to ensure that these profound issues are properly debated, before we allow the Government to break our laws whenever they choose?

Nigel Evans: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order. As he knows, it is not a point of order for the Chair, but Standing Orders do not, as he rightly says, provide for separate debate on a programme motion after Second Reading. It is, however, in order for him to raise his concerns during the Second Reading debate and to vote against the programme motion itself, should he wish to do so. The scheduling of the subsequent stages of the Bill is entirely a matter for the Government.
We are now going to suspend for three minutes to enable the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes. Will those leaving the Chamber please do so with social distancing in mind?
Sitting suspended.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Second Reading

Nigel Evans: I inform the House that I have not selected the reasoned amendment.

James Brokenshire: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This legislation is being introduced to keep our country safe and to ensure that our operational agencies and public authorities have access to the tools and intelligence that they need to keep us safe—safe from terrorists, safe from serious organised crime groups, and safe from others who wish to cause harm to our country and our citizens. Specifically, the Bill deals with participation in criminal conduct by covert human intelligence sources—so-called CHIS. These are agents, or undercover officers, who help to secure prosecutions and disruptions by infiltrating criminal and terrorist groups.
Throughout history, those entrusted to uphold the law or safeguard national security have used covert human intelligence to support and progress their activity. From Sir Francis Walsingham’s use of informers to defend the reign of Elizabeth I from internal and external threats, to the deployments by the newly formed detective units of the Metropolitan police in the latter half of the 19th century, to the double-cross system in the second world war, covert human intelligence has always been a vital part of our national security and law enforcement framework.
More recently, though, CHIS have been critical in identifying and disrupting terrorist plots, drugs and firearms offences, child sexual exploitation and abuse, and other serious organised crime. Since March 2017, MI5 and counter-terrorism police have together thwarted some 27 terror attacks. As the director general of MI5 said when the Bill was introduced:
“Without the contribution of human agents, be in no doubt…these attacks would not have been prevented.”
I have been advised that between November 2018 and 2019 CHIS operations within the Metropolitan police area alone led to 3,500 arrests, the recovery of more than 100 firearms and 400 other weapons, the seizure of more than 400 kg of class A drugs, and the recovery of more than £2.5 million in cash. Similarly, CHIS operations in 2019 alone enabled the National Crime Agency to safeguard several hundred victims of crime, including from child sexual exploitation and abuse. This is an important and unique tactic; by working their way into the heart of criminal groups, CHIS are able to access intelligence that other investigatory powers may simply never detect.

Stephen Doughty: The Minister knows how seriously I take these matters and the equipping of our security services to do the job that they need to do, often in horrendous circumstances that affect the integrity of our country and its individuals, but he will also appreciate that safeguards have to be in place. What does he have to say to those who have raised serious concerns that the Bill, as it stands, does not have the safeguards in place to prevent assault, murder and torture, about which there  is an absolute prohibition? He knows that we are a signatory to the convention on human rights, so what does he have to say on those matters?

James Brokenshire: I hope I will be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman during my speech, underlining some of the safeguards—the importance of oversight, which we attach equally to this Bill, and the operation of a criminal conduct authorisation, as contemplated by the Bill. I hope he will also have noted the specific reference to the Human Rights Act in the Bill, in order to underline some of the important points he makes about convention rights.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister has reeled off an impressive number of statistics, which justify the use of CHIS operations. How many or what proportion of the operations were undertaken by the Food Standards Agency, which will also come under the ambit of this Bill?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman is drawing me on to talk about some of those wider bodies. I will address that later in my speech, but I point out that the FSA is required to deal with issues associated with misrepresented food—food that may be harmful for human consumption. Therefore the issues of proportionality and necessity are bound within the frame of the Bill, and limit the activities that would be reasonable for such agencies to act upon. Perhaps I can come back to that a little later in my contribution.

Andrew Mitchell: We have had discussions on the points of concern to me, and my right hon. Friend has given answers to three written questions today, which were helpful indeed. He will understand the importance of the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty): that these are significant powers for us to grant in a democratic society. I believe my right hon. Friend has made the point in the past, but will he confirm today that the Human Rights Act trumps the provisions in this Bill which the hon. Gentleman and I are most concerned about?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Again, I intend to draw out this point during my contribution in the House this evening. He rightly highlights the import and implication of the Human Rights Act and what that then imports in terms of the convention rights, which we are clear provide restrictions and inhibitions on how agencies are able to operate.

John Hayes: rose—

David Davis: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will give way twice more and then get into some of the important details that I know right hon. and hon. Members would like me to address.

John Hayes: The point surely is that as well as proportionality and necessity, the Bill is particular about specificity, so that those matters that lie outside the  specific permission can be challenged in court and can indeed lead to prosecutions. That specificity is at the heart of this measure.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point. The issue of specifici—I cannot even say it; I shall settle for saying the specific authorisations that are granted. They are tightly bound and that is important. That is why we published the guidance that sits alongside the operationalisation of the Bill at the same time as the Bill—to give that sense of confirmation and clarity on how it will operate.

David Davis: I hear what my right hon. Friend says about the Human Rights Act, but the defence that the Government put up in the legal case that was brought against them said in terms that the state is “not the instigator” of such activity and
“cannot be treated as somehow responsible for it”.
The memorandum to the Bill states that
“it is to be expected that there would not be State responsibility”.
How is that using the Human Rights Act to underpin the rights of our citizens?

James Brokenshire: I know that my right hon. Friend, rightly, takes these issues incredibly seriously. The issues we are talking about go to the kernel of our national security, and equally, our confidence in our criminal justice system and the way in which our operatives, who are there to protect us, act. I do place weight on what he has said.

Stewart Hosie: Will the Minister give way before he moves on?

James Brokenshire: I would quite like to answer the previous intervention before I give way again, and I need to make some progress.
I can say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that the way in which agencies are required to act under the Bill means that they cannot act in a way that is inconsistent with the convention rights, hence the importation by the specific reference to the Human Rights Act on the face of the Bill to underline that. It is important to state that and be clear as to how the Bill operates and the protections. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has tempted me, so I will give way one final time, and then I will make some progress, because I know that others want to speak.

Stewart Hosie: On the point that the Minister just made in relation to the Human Rights Act, proposed new section 29B(7) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in clause 1 and proposed new section 7A(6) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 in schedule 1, say, for example, that subsection X is
“without prejudice to the need to take into account other matters so far as they are relevant (for example, the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998).”
Why is it not more explicit that there is an obligation to obey the Human Rights Act rather than simply referring to it as an example?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Some may argue that the inclusion of those words was not of itself necessary, because those agencies are already bound by that requirement. We take the judgment, because of the very relevant points that have been made during the course of the debate, that being clear on the face of the Bill in that regard is helpful. It is reassuring. It creates the context as to how this regime is intended to operate, and that is why it is included in the way that it is.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: Will the Minister give way?

James Brokenshire: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will make some further progress, but I will allow her to intervene on me later.
In order to build the credibility and trust of those under investigations, there are occasions where, in carefully managed circumstances and subject to robust independent safeguards, CHIS may need to participate in criminality themselves. This is an inescapable and essential feature of CHIS use and has always been fundamental to this work. Although I am unable to go into the detail about the specific criminality that a CHIS may participate in, for reasons I will come to, limited examples have been discussed in the public domain. For example, a CHIS may be required to join the organisation that they are seeking to disrupt. This membership alone will sometimes be criminal but will be deemed necessary and proportionate to prevent more serious criminality from taking place. Again, without going into the specifics, the use of that tactic enabled the police and MI5 to disrupt a planned terrorist attack on No. 10 and the then Prime Minister in 2017. The necessity of CHIS participation in criminal conduct has been accepted in the UK and around the world for many years. In December 2019, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found that MI5 has a lawful basis for this activity and recognised that CHIS participation formed an essential part of MI5’s core activities. I want to reassure the House that this Bill does not confer the power to carry out a new activity, but enables CHIS to continue to deploy the methods that they already use. Notwithstanding those powers, this Bill puts that existing practice onto a clearer statutory footing, putting the matter beyond doubt as to Parliament’s intentions. The Bill provides certainty for CHIS and their handlers and will augment our ability to recruit and retain in the future in this regard. It is important to stress that the Bill does not change the position of CHIS who have previously been properly authorised to participate in criminal activity. It has no retrospective effect.

Julian Lewis: Can the Minister explain one difference between the situation that has applied in the past and the situation that will apply in the future if the Bill goes through as it is? We are now legislating to make properly authorised criminal conduct lawful, rather than continuing with the current position whereby MI5 or another authorising authority is able to argue that it would not be in the public interest for prosecuting authorities to prosecute properly authorised criminal conduct, but there is no guarantee of immunity. What we are now saying is that they are not breaking the law, rather than, as in the past, that they were breaking the law, but that it was against the public interest to prosecute. Why the reason for that change?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, makes an important point when he draws that distinction. I say to him that, under the current regime, the Crown Prosecution Service will consider the prosecution of a properly authorised CHIS as perverse. So in essence, the Bill will offer no practical difference in the application of the power, because obviously the conduct will have to be properly authorised, as it does now. If something has not been properly authorised, then clearly the authorisation will not have effect. Where CHIS conduct is outside that authorisation, there will be no impact on the ability to prosecute. Public authorities tightly limit the scope of CHIS criminal conduct, so this will not provide a licence to commit crime outside those stringent limits. In reality, the practical difference between providing a defence and making conduct lawful is limited. Indeed, we say that the provisions actually reflect broader provisions within the current legislative regime, governing all other aspects as well. There is a distinction, which the right hon. Gentleman makes, but in practice, we do not see that there is the fundamentals difference that perhaps some might wish to paint into it.

Steven Baker: One of the problems that the Government have today is that, for those of us who like the red meat of law enforcement and law and order, the Minister has forced us to look inside the abattoir, and of course we do not like what we see. On this point about stringent limits, will he explain why there is not more in the Bill to put those limits in place? I cannot imagine Ministers will be authorising killing or torture, so why are those things not in the Bill, so that the public can have very clear confidence that they will not be authorised?

James Brokenshire: I will come on to that issue—this is why, although I wanted to give way to many Members, I wanted at the same time to make progress with my speech. I will not go into the limits of what can and cannot be done because of this issue of what is known as CHIS testing—providing a list against which sources can be tested, which has practical implications to it. What I can say to my hon. Friend is that I will come on to the import of the Human Rights Act in just a second, if he will be patient.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will give way to the hon. Lady, who has been very patient.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: The Minister has talked about practices that are already permitted, but does he appreciate that there are many, many questions about those practices? That is why there has been the Pitchford inquiry, which has now dragged on for so long that it is about to be called something else. Are the Government not the slightest bit concerned about laying down such a piece of legislation before the inquiry has reported, given the history of agents provocateurs undermining progressive movements such as our trade unions and deceiving women in intimate relationships? All of these things have been carried out before, and people have major concerns about that. Will the Government explain why they have no concerns whatsoever about laying down a piece of legislation without having looked at what that inquiry finds?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Lady makes a serious point. First, there is no retrospective effect—it is quite important for me to state that explicitly. Therefore, actions that have occurred in the past and are subject to further inquiry, and potentially further criminal investigation, are untouched by the Bill. On the position moving forward, I have explained the different safeguards. She refers to trade union activity. Trade union activity is lawful. I recognise some of the concerns expressed, and it is important that I state that in order to provide assurance. This is tightly bound—it is about providing the oversight, the governance and the proportionality and setting out the necessity of this for criminal justice, security and other issues that I have already alluded to. I am grateful to her for intervening to allow me, I hope, to be more specific on that point.

Chris Stephens: On the previous intervention, there are real concerns about women who are seeking legal redress for sexual assaults at the hands of police officers in the spy cops inquiry. Can the Minister guarantee that if those situations were to occur again, survivors of sexual assault could seek legal redress?

James Brokenshire: I can certainly say that there are clearly ongoing inquiries in relation to this important and sensitive issue. I have highlighted the lack of any retrospection, and I point the hon. Gentleman to what has happened since then and what the police themselves have underlined in this regard. There is an enhanced regime of what are known as relevant sources—in other words, undercover police officers—and the criminal conduct authorisation is in addition to the regime to authorise and approve a CHIS covert source in the first place.
It has never been acceptable, as the police have said, for an undercover operative to form an intimate sexual relationship with those they are employed to infiltrate and target, or who they may encounter during their deployment. This conduct will never be authorised, nor must it ever be used as a tactic in deployment. That is made clear through the code of ethics for the police as well as the updated law enforcement agency undercover operative authorised professional practice.
I hope that I have explained what the Bill does and what it does not do, and therefore how it is quite specific. On the point about what is on the face of the Bill, it is about locking in the existing regime and other safeguards on the authorisation of a source in the first place. That has to happen first, and then, if it is warranted, justified and fits within the boundaries of the Bill, there is the criminal conduct authorisation that sits alongside it, which has to be subject to the earlier authorisation.

Yvette Cooper: Does the Minister agree that sexual assault and rape are clearly prohibited by article 3 of the Human Rights Act? Does he recognise that the importance of the Human Rights Act in providing a safeguard to this Bill means that it would be helpful to hear wider support for the purposes of the Act from across his Government, not just from him on the Front Bench?

James Brokenshire: Obviously there is the specific reference on the face of the Bill that I have alluded to, and therefore there is that requirement. As the right hon. Lady will know what the convention rights say, for  operational and other reasons I will not go beyond what the convention says. There are very clear issues that I will now, I hope, come on to in that regard that will help to draw this out.

Maria Miller: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will give way one last time and then make further progress.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister; he is being very generous. He has been clear that sexual assaults on women such as the ones that have been referred to are entirely prohibited and not allowed, but they have obviously happened. In the past, those cases have been brought forward for proper review. How will they be brought forward in future under this Bill?

James Brokenshire: I have drawn out the separate regime that operates in relation to the authorisation of, for example, undercover officers, as well as the tight remit, the ambit and some of the additional oversight that is provided in respect of that regime. Again, that is all subject to the supervisory nature of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and can, therefore, as with the provisions proposed through the Bill, be drawn out through that route. However, I will hopefully make some more progress and be able to get into how the Bill works and some of the further assurances. I may not be quite as generous with interventions, so that I can hopefully make progress and let other right hon. and hon. Members in.
The Bill amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by inserting a new section to provide a power for public authorities to grant a criminal conduct authorisation. Equivalent amendments are also proposed to the equivalent legislation in Scotland, subject to ongoing constructive engagement with the Scottish Government.
A CCA may be granted only where it is necessary for one of three statutory purposes: national security, the prevention or detection of crime, or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK. It must also be proportionate to what it is seeking to achieve, and consideration must be given to whether the objective could be achieved by conduct that is not criminal. These authorisations will be tightly bound and granted by a highly trained and experienced authorising officer. They must also be compliant with our obligations under the Human Rights Act, including the right to life and the prohibition of torture or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Again, I will expand a little further shortly.
A CCA can also apply only where the deployment or engagement of the CHIS has already been authorised under the existing section 29 of RIPA, and is subject to the limits that that section provides. As such, there is a two-stage process: first, the authorisation of the use of a CHIS and, secondly, the separate authorisation of that source to carry out criminal conduct in the tightly prescribed circumstances proposed by the Bill.
It is worth highlighting that, alongside the Bill, we have published draft provisions of the CHIS code of practice, which provides further detail as to how the authorisation process will work and the factors an authorising officer must consider before granting  an authorisation. To be clear, all authorisations are  precise and explicit. A CHIS will never be given unlimited authority to commit any or all crimes. The effect of an authorisation is to render the authorised conduct lawful. This model is consistent with the approach we have taken for other investigatory powers. Of course, where a CHIS commits any criminality outside the tight parameters of the authorisation, the prosecuting authorities can consider this in the normal way.
Members will understand that, because of the clandestine nature of their work, there are limits to what I can say publicly about the role that CHIS play in saving lives and property, without exposing sensitive information about their methods and techniques. I know that there are concerns about the Bill somehow providing a licence to kill or to commit torture. Let me be clear that there are upper limits to the activity that can be authorised under the Bill, and those are contained in the Human Rights Act. That includes the right to life and the prohibition of torture or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It is unlawful for any public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the legislation makes clear that nothing in the Bill detracts from a public authority’s obligations under the Human Rights Act. Therefore, an act that would be incompatible with the ECHR could not lawfully be granted under this Bill.
We do not believe, however, that it is appropriate to draw up a list of specific crimes that may be authorised or prohibited. To do so would place in the hands of criminals, terrorists and hostile states a means of identifying our agents and sources, creating a potential checklist for suspected CHIS to be tested against. That would threaten the future of the CHIS capability and result in an increased threat to the public. Protecting CHIS from prosecution will have achieved little if we cannot also protect them from being identified by the terrorist and criminal groups they inform against, placing them at personal risk.

Stephen Doughty: I am listening very carefully to what the Minister is saying, but will he be clear? This is all predicated on our continued membership of the European convention on human rights and on the Human Rights Act staying as it is, and at the moment we have an Attorney General who has made very clear her intentions towards both those instruments. Can he make it clear that we will stay in the ECHR and that the Human Rights Act will stay as the bedrock of the guarantees on this, but also that other international conventions we are signatories to, including the convention against torture, would also apply in restricting actions that could be authorised under this Bill?

James Brokenshire: I have been pretty clear about the way this Bill operates and the manner in which agencies and the different bodies that can be authorised are able to act. Clearly, I cannot bind this House for the future, but I am very clear that we stand by our ECHR commitments, which is why this has been expressed in the way that it has in the Bill. I hope that is helpful to him.

David Davis: What my right hon. Friend has described is, in effect, a wish not to provide a terrorist checklist, as it were, to test a member of such an organisation. Did he read the article in The Times this  morning by probably one of the best Directors of Public Prosecutions of modern times, who would probably know more about this than all of us in this House? It was scathing about that analysis and said it simply did not stand up?

James Brokenshire: I am happy to respond to that point specifically. We are not suggesting that there is routine testing of suspected CHIS in all criminal groups, but there is evidence that this does occur more than infrequently, and I say that in clear terms. We are asking CHIS to put themselves in difficult positions to help the state investigate these criminal groups, and it is our judgment that we need to make sure that we can best protect them, and that means avoiding the provision of a checklist of crimes that can be tested against. I note that this risk is not just to CHIS, but to people who are not CHIS but may be suspected of being so.

Julian Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the independent commissioner, established under the 2016 Act by this House, has, in the 2018 report of the analysis on MI5 and other agencies, written very positively about the processes, the applications for CHIS and the rigour that these organisations go through? It is important that the House realises that these processes are rigorous, detailed and already in place.

James Brokenshire: Yes, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. With his experience as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he knows the importance of these national security issues in the context of Northern Ireland. He is right, and this point about safeguards and oversight is precisely what I was about to come on to. It is about the rigorous and careful way in which the agencies operate and the focus that they attach to this, as shown in the response the commissioner provided in his 2018 report and equally by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal when it reflected on this.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Will the Minister give way?

James Brokenshire: I will give way, but this is probably the last time as I am conscious of time and of getting others in.

Liz Saville-Roberts: In the 2018 report by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, one of the issues that raised concern was the sheer prevalence of human error. We are rolling this out to further Departments. Surely, we are also rolling out the potential for further human error.

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Lady makes an important point about training and about ensuring that the high standards necessary here are applied. I would say to her that, equally, such focus needs to be applied to those who operate this regime in order to get this right because of the potential criminality that sits alongside it. There are obligations to report errors to the commissioner, and equally the commissioner will report on those too. Rigorous standards are necessary to ensure that criminal conduct authorisations are made appropriately and well, and the way in which that operates now and will operate for all agencies—whether the Security Service, policing  or some of the other agencies—is subject to that clear oversight, and the Bill draws that out and makes it explicit.
As I have said, it is important to state that, in view of the restrictions on what can be disclosed publicly, the Government also recognise the importance of robust independent oversight. The authorisation of CHIS participation in criminal conduct is and will continue to be subject to this robust oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The IPC—

Andrew Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?

James Brokenshire: I am very conscious that I am now eating into the time of others who may wish to speak, so I will perhaps make some more progress, and we will see where we get to.
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and his judicial commissioners, have all held high judicial office. The current IPC, Sir Brian Leveson, was most recently president of the Queen’s bench division and is entirely independent of Government. The commissioners are supported by expert inspectors and others, such as technical experts, qualified to assist the commissioners in their work.
The IPC conducts wide-ranging inspections of public authorities and publishes an annual report on the findings from those inspections. The IPC himself sets the frequency of those inspections, and public authorities are required to provide unfettered access to documents and information. The Bill strengthens the IPC’s role by providing that the IPC must explicitly keep CCAs under review and include information on the use of them in his annual report. The most recent report from the IPC found that in all instances MI5’s authorisations of CHIS participation in criminal conduct were proportionate to the anticipated operational benefits and met a high necessity threshold.
Further, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has statutory responsibility to oversee the UK intelligence community. Hon. and right hon. Friends on the Committee have a vital role in scrutinising the work of the intelligence agencies, and I am grateful to the Committee for its support for the legislation and welcome its expertise as the House considers the Bill in detail. I also note that Select Committees will equally play an important role in scrutinising the work of law enforcement and wider public authorities.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

James Brokenshire: On that note, I give way to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Yvette Cooper: I am very grateful to the Minister, who has been very generous with his time. Clearly he makes the case that we need to continue with covert intelligence, particularly on extremist groups that may be proscribed. Associating with them in any way is currently a crime, so clearly he makes a strong case for legislation to ensure that such intelligence can continue in the interests of national security. I know that he recognises, though, that having safeguards is also in the interests of national security and of the intelligence agencies and the police.
The safeguards in place on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in the Bill are still very vague. It is very broad and very much retrospective, as opposed to  concurrent assessments. Will the Minister look again at the potential for amendments on authorisation and very timely oversight, and on strengthening the measures on Investigatory Powers Commissioners, so that it is possible to get the details of the legislation right?

James Brokenshire: Obviously, we will have continued debate during the passage of the Bill. I believe that it provides strong oversight and governance, but I will continue to reflect. Judicial approval is an important safeguard for the operation of some of our investigatory powers; however, it is not the only way to provide a robust oversight of a power. It is important to recognise the context of this: we are talking about human beings. Some challenging issues operate around this space, which is why we judge that robust retrospective oversight is the right approach, but I will keep the timeliness of that, and how it operates, under reflection so that perhaps further reassurance can be provided, specifically on the point of how soon oversight can occur after an authorisation has been made.

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is being generous. At what level will the original authorisation take place in the various organisations? From reading the Bill, it seems to me that the level in the police is a relatively junior police officer. In view of the seriousness that such authorisation leads to, should it not be given at chief constable level, and why can it not be given through a warrant overseen by a judge?

James Brokenshire: Ihave responded to the latter point on the judgment that we have made in relation to this regime and how we believe that deep retrospective oversight is the right approach. This is distinct from phones or cameras. The use of CHIS requires deep expertise and close consideration of the personal qualities of that CHIS, which then enables very precise and safe tasking. There are different elements to how this operates, and the experience and highly trained nature of the authorising officer in some ways informs the relevant authorising level that is specified within the guidance. Robust retrospective oversight is provided equally by the commissioner himself, to give further assurance.
If I may, I shall turn to a separate point about specific public authorities’ ability to grant a criminal conduct authorisation. The RIPA already lists a range of public authorities that use CHIS for general investigative purposes. Far fewer public authorities will be able to grant a criminal conduct authorisation. Only those public authorities that have demonstrated a clear operational need for the tactic are able to use the power. These are the intelligence agencies, the police, the National Crime Agency, the armed forces, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and 10 other public authorities. Pausing momentarily on this list, I want to highlight the role that these wider public authorities also have in investigating and preventing serious criminal activity. The Environment Agency, for example, investigates the illegal dumping of toxic waste that can permanently harm our environment. The Serious Fraud Office investigates complex fraud cases that risk costing the public millions of pounds. The Food Standards Agency investigates deliberate mislabelling and the sale of unsafe food to the public. HMRC tackles the money laundering and trafficking of illicit goods that would risk significant damage to the economy.
We expect the wider public authorities to have only limited use of this power, because a criminal conduct authorisation can be granted only where it is necessary and proportionate to the criminality it is seeking to frustrate. There will, however, be occasions where CHIS will be critical in providing the intelligence to prevent, detect and prosecute serious crimes. This is increasingly important as organised crime groups expand into areas overseen by these public authorities.
This is an important and necessary Bill—

Steven Baker: Will the Minister allow me, before he finishes?

James Brokenshire: I will, for one final time, then I will wrap up.

Steven Baker: I am extremely grateful. He mentioned the armed forces very briskly there. Could he clarify why the armed forces might need to engage in criminal conduct? I suspect it is because they each operate their own military police, and that those police might need to have covert operations, but I would be grateful if he clarified that, because there will be suspicious souls out there worrying that there is some other motive for the armed forces being authorised to break the law.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend highlights one particular aspect of the role of the Ministry of Defence. It is difficult to go into detail, but one further example I would give is that it might be necessary to access a proscribed organisation. As I say, the reporting regime is quite specific. Indeed, the oversight that is envisaged—and the oversight in the existing legislation—draws this out quite carefully and clearly for the issues that I have highlighted, on proportionality and necessity, as well as those specific aspects in the Bill, stating that it can relate only to national security, criminality and economic wellbeing. It has to anchor to those three elements, as well as to the Human Rights Act application that we have debated at length this evening.
This is an important and necessary Bill. It is not about providing agents with an unfettered ability to break the law and commit any crime. There are strict requirements that must be satisfied, and robust and independent oversight will be in place. The Bill is really looking to achieve just one thing, which is to ensure that our intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies with important intelligence functions are able to continue to utilise a tactic that has been, and will continue to be, critical to keeping us all safe. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful to the Minister for his opening speech, and for his briefings and approach to this Bill. He has been generous with his time and I appreciate that.
First, I thank our police and security services, the National Crime Agency and wider law enforcement for the work they do in keeping us safe. Those on the frontline put themselves in danger every day to help others, to protect us and to prevent loss of life. That work is vital and in the national interest, and we thank them for what they do on our behalf. We on the Opposition Benches recognise the importance of that work, and of covert human intelligence sources and the results they  achieve. The issue is how we ensure that vital work continues, but on a statutory footing and with the strong safeguards that are also vital.
I have listened carefully to what our law enforcement agencies have said about covert human intelligence sources. The Minister referenced the director general of MI5, who has said that
“Since March 2017, MI5 and Counter Terror Police have together thwarted 27 terror attacks.”
His judgment was that
“Without the contribution of human agents, be in no doubt, many of these attacks would not have been prevented.”
To be clear, that activity is saving lives by stopping terrorist attacks on people.
I have also considered the wider data available, particularly on the National Crime Agency. In 2018, for example, covert human intelligence operations disrupted threats to life, arrested serious criminals, seized thousands of kilograms of class A drugs, safeguarded over 200 vulnerable people, and took firearms and rounds of ammunition off the streets. I also appreciate the role that covert human intelligence sources play in addressing heinous crimes such as child sexual exploitation, and organised crime such as black markets in, among other things, vital medicine. We on the Opposition side of the House recognise the importance of that work.
At the same time, though, that work has not been on a statutory footing. Frankly, it should be, alongside formal safeguards. This activity is not new; it has been going on under existing practices for many years, and it should be on a statutory footing because that will allow for the necessary and robust safeguards that we on the Opposition Benches will be pressing for. It should be on a consistent and clear basis, and a system with clear protections should be in place. As we put this system on to a statutory footing, it is a moment to be clear about what we expect of those engaged in this conduct and the standards we should set; as this Bill passes through the House, it is a moment to detail not just those standards, but how we expect them to be implemented. That is why we in the Opposition will not be voting against this Bill tonight, but feel it should move to Committee for consideration and improvement.
I know that there are deep concerns about the safeguards in this Bill and it is to that crucial issue I now turn. The matters we are dealing with today are difficult for any Parliament; they are deep and serious questions for any democratic society, and raise critical issues that the Government will need to address as the Bill progresses through the House and the other place. It is crucial, too, that there is public confidence in what our security services and other agencies that use covert human intelligence sources actually do with regard to authorised criminal conduct. I entirely accept that an agent embedded in a proscribed organisation is committing an offence every day by virtue of being part of it, but is doing so for the purpose of thwarting plots and stopping greater loss of life. I appreciate that, but it is still vital that the wider framework under which they operate has trust and confidence.

Theresa Villiers: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Members of this House, when considering this Bill, should take comfort from  the fact that we have one of the most rigorous and toughest oversight regimes in the world for regulating our intelligence services?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I of course welcome the oversight that has been introduced for our intelligence services; the situation is very different from how it was in decades past. However, that does not detract from the additional safeguards that are needed in this specific Bill.
Under the Bill as it stands—I am quoting, because I want to press the Minister on this point—authorisations for participation in criminal conduct may only be granted
“if it is necessary (a) in the interests of national security; (b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; or (c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”
The Government need to be clear about what is within the scope of that framework. It cannot and should not encompass any lawful activity, nor should we allow mission creep in the years ahead.
I hope the Minister would agree that a Bill such as this one should have no business whatsoever interfering with the legitimate and lawful work of our trade union movement, which is a cornerstone of our democracy and a bastion of rights. I welcome what the Minister said in answer to an intervention—that trade union activity is legitimate and lawful and therefore is not within the ambit of the Bill—but some concerns have been expressed that the words I quoted referring to economic interests could refer to the legitimate work of trade unions. I would welcome it if the Solicitor General, when he responds to the debate, could repeat the Minister’s assurance that trade unions are not meant to come within the ambit of those words.
In addition to the test of necessity, the authorisation may be granted only where it is
“proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by”
the conduct. I welcome and note the test of necessity and proportionality. Nothing should be authorised in contravention of the European convention on human rights, to which I will return in a moment. But first the Government must justify the need for each and every agency and body listed in the Bill—what powers, what purpose. Nobody expects details on ongoing investigations—of course we do not—but a sense of the type of issues expected to arise is crucial to enable the House to consider that list properly and whether the presence of the organisation on the list is necessary.
In answer to an intervention from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is no longer in his place, the Minister mentioned, with regard to the Food Standards Agency, mislabelling and unsafe food. We need more detail on that and the links to organised and serious crime. Similarly, the Gambling Commission is another example, and it is absolutely clear as to why that is on the list. I do not propose to go through the list one by one; suffice it to say that each and every one needs to be justified.

Kevan Jones: As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I have seen how the security services conduct these activities in detail in some cases. When I saw the Bill and the list of organisations, I was a bit shocked, to be honest. The Minister made the argument for the inclusion of the  Food Standards Agency; from my experience—not personal experience, I hasten to add—of a case that involved waste theft and the Environment Agency, the lead was the police, and the Environment Agency worked across agencies. I want some assurance as to why it is necessary for the Food Standards Agency or the Environment Agency, for that matter, to have a lead in these situations.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I was relieved to have the reassurance that my right hon. Friend’s experience did not involve him personally, but he is entirely right about the reassurances that are necessary in terms of each and every case.
As the Minister has said, there is a section 19 certification from the Home Secretary on the face of the Bill regarding its compatibility with convention rights. In addition to that, I note that in clause 1, what will become the new section 29B(7) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 mentions the Human Rights Act 1998 specifically. There is a real need for reassurance on this issue, so that the public and the House know that the most heinous of crimes will not be carried out in the name of this Government or, indeed, any other future Government. I appreciate that the European convention on human rights protects the right to life and is clear about the prohibition of torture or, indeed, subjecting anyone to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and that is important, but the Government need to be crystal clear about their intention for when the courts come to consider this legislation, as they inevitably will. We cannot have any doubts about the Government’s intention or Parliament’s intention.
I accept that it is important that the Human Rights Act is, unusually, mentioned on the face of the Bill, and I notice that the accompanying memorandum sets out the following:
“Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights. Nothing in this Bill detracts from that fundamental position. Authorising authorities are not permitted by this Bill to authorise conduct which would constitute or entail a breach of those rights.”
What we cannot have is a position, referred to by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), in which any argument is put on the Government’s behalf in courts or tribunals that this system is not in place covering the activities of covert human intelligence sources, or that this system is somehow free or exempt from Human Rights Act considerations. Nor could we have a situation where there are deliberate attempts to prevent the Human Rights Act from coming into play. That is why we will be pressing the Government on public limits and on their position regarding those limits on criminal activity to be authorised.

David Davis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by not specifying in terms, the Government are inviting a challenge to the whole Bill, not under the Human Rights Act but under the torture convention? The international view of torture is more absolute than the international view of murder. Therefore, I think it highly likely that if the Bill goes through as it stands, the Government will be facing the courts within the next year, losing their case and having to rewrite the Bill.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If the Bill does not have those safeguards on its face as it should, it will simply be successfully  challenged in our courts. It is in nobody’s interests for that position to pertain, which is why I am making this point, on which I hope we can work on a cross-party basis.

Julian Smith: In its legal adjudication on the third direction earlier this year, a majority on the Investigatory Powers Tribunal—the special tribunal overseeing the intelligence services—found that the oversight powers currently given to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner provided
“adequate safeguards against the risk of abuse of discretionary power”.
It is important in our debate on the Bill to recognise those comments in that judgment, which is partly the reason that the Government have introduced the Bill.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, an issue to which I will return in a moment, but what he is actually referring to is one of the instances where the Government have tried to argue that the Human Rights Act did not apply. It is precisely for that reason, and because such arguments were raised in the past, that I am raising the point that I am.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I understand that one of the filings that the Government put to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal said that
“the state, in tasking the CHIS…is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as somehow responsible for it…it would be unreal to hold the state responsible.”
Does he share my concern about the various get-out clauses for the Government in these powers, and does he agree that it is better to have a public limit and safeguards, as they do in Canada for example, on a number of such activities?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, both on the Canada model and on the point, which I put to the Government, that we cannot have a situation in future where there is any doubt about what was meant on the face of this Bill. We cannot have the Government having put forward on their behalf the argument that the Human Rights Act somehow does not apply.

David Davis: The Government should not rest too hard on an IPT judgment. It is normal in these intelligence oversight commissions to have unanimity from the judges. In this case it was a 3-2 judgment, and the minority in that judgment described the Government’s argument as “fanciful” and “extraordinary” and as setting “dangerous precedents”, so I do not think they should rest on that at all.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: No, and the right hon. Gentleman illustrates precisely the point I am making. That is why the position has to be crystal clear. We cannot have a situation where such arguments are being put in written submissions, or in other ways, before a tribunal or indeed any other court. The public limit—this reassurance—is so important because, as I have said, if the Government do not get it right, and if they are not crystal clear on issues such as murder, torture and sexual violence, they will get into trouble in the courts in any event.
Given the nature of some of the networks that the Bill looks to disrupt, there are also clear concerns about the gendered impact of actions by covert human intelligence sources. The Government must seek to uphold the highest possible standards on gender impact. We will be pushing for such safeguards as the Bill moves forward, particularly in relation to rape and sexual violence. Members have also rightly expressed concerns about the risk of a disproportionate impact on black, Asian and other ethnic minority communities. We will push for safeguards on that, too, as the Bill progresses. When the Solicitor General winds up, I hope he can also provide assurances about the work being undertaken by law enforcement to address that and commit to publishing full and extensive Equality Act 2010 assessments.
On those who make decisions to authorise criminal conduct, the memorandum on the European convention on human rights supplied with the Bill states:
“The Bill strengthens the current legal position by putting the power to authorise criminal conduct by a CHIS on an explicit statutory footing.”
A legal framework is needed—I am clear that this activity should not continue in the shadows without clear accountability—but at present there is self-authorisation in the Bill.
If the police were to enter the property of any Member of this House, they would need a warrant to do so beforehand. I appreciate that things in this sphere move at speed, but in a number of areas of law we have judges available 24 hours a day who can offer services and give judgments on things such as emergency injunctions, so we will press that issue of prior judicial oversight. The more serious the crime authorised, the more senior the level of authorisation necessary—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) made that point—subject to that oversight, and there needs to be assurance that the standards that this House sets will be adhered to and implemented.
Clause 4(3) amends section 234 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to require the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to include information about public authorities’ use of criminal conduct authorisations in its annual report. It is stated that that will include statistics on use of the power, the operation of safeguards, and errors, which I will come back to in a moment.
I appreciate that that requirement is subject to the existing protections in the Investigatory Powers Act for information that relates to national security. I also appreciate that public authorities will have to disclose all documents necessary to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. However, as it stands, the requirement is too vague, as was pointed out by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).
The requirement must involve more than the inclusion of a section or some sort of confidential annexe in the commissioner’s annual report. There is no reason why, for example, categories of crime cannot be published without compromising operational security. Every single authorisation should be notified to the commissioner, who can then provide ongoing oversight. That seems to me to be a far more effective way of giving reassurance on the operation of safeguards and of ensuring that where there are errors—again, I will return to that—something can be done immediately to ensure that such a mistake does not happen again. It seems to me that if  this is looked at only on an annual basis, there is more scope for errors to be built into the system. I do not think it is unduly onerous for each and every authorisation to be notified to the commissioner.
I also see no reason why Members of this House—I mean the Intelligence and Security Committee, which deals with sensitive information all the time—cannot have more detail about the use of this power and in what context. Again, that would give far greater reassurance about the use of the power over time and public confidence in it.
In addition, there is the issue of redress and civil claims for wholly innocent victims. In the memorandum on convention rights, the Government state:
“The individuals who are most likely to be affected by the criminal conduct of a CHIS are those with whom the agent is engaging in order to thwart the criminality.”
That may be, but the key words there are “most likely”. What about a wholly innocent person who ends up with material or other loss as a consequence of the actions of a covert human intelligence source?
The position in the Bill is that a complaint can be made to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with regard to these powers, which can be independently considered. I appreciate that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine complaints against public authorities’ use of investigatory powers, including the use of covert human intelligence sources, but that is not the same as a proper civil claim. What if the authorised criminal act is botched? What if there is mistaken identity? Again, that is something that we will press in Committee.
While there is a narrow but fundamental part of the Bill about authorising criminal conduct, I want to talk about some wider issues. In relation to Northern Ireland, it must be clear that legacy issues are not affected by the Bill in the context of the peace process. On the issue of past injustices, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out again that this is not a retrospective Bill, but it has to be clear that those seeking justice for what happened in the past can still do so. We on the Labour Benches are committed to a full, independent public inquiry into the events at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984. It will only be by shining a penetrating light on the events of that day that we can have justice, and I commend those who have been campaigning on it for so long.
There is an ongoing inquiry into undercover policing—the so-called spy cop scandal, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy)—chaired by Sir John Mitting. The evidential hearings open next month, and it has to be clear that recommendations from that inquiry will be implemented and victims will not be denied access to justice. I appreciated the Minister’s reassurance that such appalling behaviour was never lawful in the past and will not be lawful in the future. We must never stand to one side on issues like this. We commit again to pressing for justice for all victims. The delays in the existing inquiry have been unacceptable. Victims have been put through a terrible ordeal, and the least they deserve is access to justice.
I also want to talk about the practice of deceitful and unlawful blacklisting. In doing so, I refer to my entry into the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding  my union, the Unite union, and its financial support for my election campaign to this House. I appreciate that the Bill is a narrow one on criminal conduct, rather than the wider issue of when an undercover policing operation begins, but since the blacklisting scandal surfaced over a decade ago, it is clear that these are not merely allegations. I appreciate that, in relation to blacklisting in the construction industry, we have seen a substantial out-of-court settlement, and there are ongoing proceedings. However, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Martin’s findings in the Metropolitan police’s internal investigation stated:
“The report concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation that the police or special branches supplied information is ‘proven.’ Material revealed a potentially improper flow of information from Special Branch to external organisations, which ultimately appeared on the blacklist.”
That is a hugely serious issue. The Government should be on notice that we will not hesitate to raise this and hold Ministers to account on the involvement of our law enforcement in the disgraceful process of blacklisting.

David Davis: I also declare an interest: a member of my family was blacklisted. This concern is not confined to the Labour party. The probable handing on of information from special branch is something that needs to be resolved as part of the honour of our country.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support in that matter, and I am happy that the Minister has made clear that this legislation has no impact on the search for justice in relation to that appalling practice.
The aim of this legislation should be to keep people safe and bring dangerous criminals to justice. I appreciate the assurance that this does not, and is not designed in any way to, disrupt legitimate and lawful trade union activity. Should any Bill do that, it would be opposed by Labour Members.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: From listening to the arguments that have been made, it strikes me that the Bill is presumably intended to protect undercover officers from facing prosecution in a situation where they should not, because they are doing their work. More experienced Members might be able to give me examples of situations where officers have faced prosecution in those circumstances, but I certainly cannot think of any. A few weeks ago, during our debate on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, we were told about ambulance-chasing lawyers, and I am wondering whether we will now hear about police-chasing prosecution services.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I certainly would never use divisive rhetoric about those before our courts who are protecting people’s rights; we should be absolutely clear about that. This Bill is on the narrow issue of criminal conduct. It should not and would not have anything to do with trade union and lawful activity, and if it ever did, it would, of course, be strongly opposed. On my hon. Friend’s final point, existing practice versus what happens now is a very important issue. At the moment, this happens in the shadows: it happens where prosecuting authorities are given specific information and the prosecutions simply do not take place. This should be on a proper statutory footing, with the safeguards we are arguing for.
Labour’s commitment is to work in the national interest to keep people, their families, their community and the country safe. That is why I have taken the approach I have with the Bill. We recognise the importance of this activity being on a statutory footing, which is why I will not be opposing the passage of the Bill today. However, in Committee we will look to press the Government on their position. We will hold Ministers to account, seeking to improve the Bill on the vital issue of safeguards, so that the public can have confidence in the process, while law enforcement bodies can carry out the vital work of keeping us all safe.

Eleanor Laing: I am going to start with a time limit of nine minutes, which is advisory. I put on a time limit of nine minutes so that no individual Member is encouraged to take dozens of interventions and therefore take 20 minutes. I hope that that will be roughly about right to ensure that everybody gets a decent chance to speak on this extremely important issue.

Julian Lewis: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall endeavour to set a good example.
Both Front Benchers have begun this debate in a solemn, sober and thoroughly non-partisan way. That is greatly to be welcomed. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), referred briefly to the oversight role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I can give advance warning, as it were, that other members of the Committee will be referring—in particular, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard)—to at least one amendment the ISC will probably put forward, relating to accountability and oversight by the ISC, at a later stage in these proceedings.
The work of the United Kingdom’s domestic and overseas intelligence agencies would be considerably less complicated and decidedly less dangerous if we could rely solely on the technical triumphs which achieved so much in Room 40 in the first world war, and via the Ultra organisation in the second. Sadly, that has never been the case and, as long as spying has existed, spies in human form have proven indispensable. Covert agents operate under extremely hazardous conditions inside hostile organisations, or cells of organisations, where discovery of their true identity and purpose could prove fatal. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill describe the use of covert human intelligence sources as
“a key tactic in protecting national security and investigating serious crime”,
and the operation of such agents as
“a core part of security, intelligence and policing work”.
It is hard to disagree with that evaluation. If it were known that CHIS agents could never engage in criminal activity in concert with the groups they are infiltrating, it would be simplicity itself for ruthless organisations to devise techniques to flush them out and eliminate them.
Until now, the security service has had an implied power, derived from the Security Service Act 1989, to authorise CHIS agents to take part in criminality. As we have heard, last December the investigatory powers tribunal ruled in favour of MI5 in a case which challenged such authorisations. However, that ruling was by just a  3-2 majority, thus illustrating the point well known to the Intelligence and Security Committee that the switch of a single vote can dramatically change even a carefully pre-planned outcome. [Laughter.] The ISC welcomes the principle behind the Bill to put existing powers to authorise criminal conduct, in certain circumstances, on to an explicit statutory basis.
One of our predecessor Committees was told in 2016 by the then director general of MI5 that CHIS agents are
“the intelligence collection asset that we could not operate without. They give you insight that technical intelligence cannot give”.
Despite necessary redactions, the 2017-19 ISC’s own report on Northern Ireland-related terrorism, presented to Parliament today, although it was drafted before I rejoined the Committee, convincingly concludes at paragraph 39 that:
“While there are, rightly, concerns that criminal activity may somehow be being legitimised, the need for such authorisations is clear. What is key is that authorisations are properly circumscribed, used only where necessary and proportionate, and subject to proper scrutiny.”
Like its predecessor, the current ISC believes that these authorisations are essential if innocent lives are to be saved. Indeed, we have seen real examples where precisely that has happened—and where lives would definitely have been lost if a courageous agent had been banned from participating in any criminal activity.
Naturally, this power must be properly circumscribed and must be used, as repeatedly stated, only where necessary and proportionate. At later stages, consideration of the Bill will surely focus on how to apply necessity and proportionality, but I urge colleagues in all parts of the House not to seek too much specificity regarding what criminality meets those standards. Preventing agents inside a criminal enterprise from engaging in a specified checklist of possible crimes would make their unmasking and potential execution very much more likely. It would be dangerously counterproductive to compile such a checklist. We need to remember that there is more than one way for society to have blood on its hands.

Richard Thomson: Allow me to begin by placing on the record my party’s gratitude to the agencies covered by the Bill for the work they do to keep all of us safe, and expressing our understanding and appreciation that in carrying out that work, there are circumstances where the use of a covert human intelligence source may be necessary. We accept that it can be legitimate to perpetuate a harm in order to prevent a greater harm down the line, and while naturally attention is drawn to the police, the armed forces and the security services in this Bill, the inclusion of the other agencies listed requires equal attention if we are to protect people’s rights.
I think it is a matter of fundamental principle, when we are dealing with the coercive powers of the state, that we are right to proceed with the greatest of care. Although we accept that the Bill seeks to put on a legal footing many activities that we know have always taken place, even if we have not known that they were taking place, we know that often they have taken place to our great discredit. Putting that on a legal footing, where everyone knows the rules of engagement and the legal parameters within which those activities take place, is a positive.
The Bill must do that in a way which ensures proper safeguards to protect rights, and which commands the support not just of Parliament but of the public at large. Scottish National party Members consider that the Bill still has some distance to go in that regard. Although there are principles inherent to the Bill that we can support, there are outstanding concerns that mean that, while we will not be able to support Second Reading, we look forward to working with the Government to improve the Bill as it progresses. I will use the time available to me to outline those concerns.
First, as the Minister well knows from his dialogue with the Scottish Government, the Lord Advocate in Scotland retains concerns about how aspects of this Bill might progress. I know there has been constructive dialogue between the Scottish Government and the UK Government; we welcome that, and we hope and expect that it will continue. We hope those outstanding concerns can be addressed, allowing the legislative competence motion to be laid at Holyrood.
I come on to the principles we can support. Subject to qualifications regarding potential entrapment, no usage beyond that which is reasonable and proportionate, and any viable alternatives being absent, it can, in certain circumstances, be reasonable to allow the law to be broken in order to prevent a more serious harm from taking place. But our questions today relate to what is and is not reasonable, and how to ensure that the safeguards of governance and scrutiny on that are adequate. As has been said by a few Members, the first of those concerns relates to authorisation. The Bill, as it stands, would allow the authorisation of a CHIS by a senior and experienced officer within the organisation authorising it. I hope hon. Members can see the potential conflict of interest there straightaway, no matter how senior and experienced that authorising officer might be. As far as we are concerned, that is inappropriate. If there were to be a form of external authorisation, that would overcome that concern. We are willing to work with the UK Government to find a way that would permit that authorisation in a way that is reasonable, proportionate, appropriate and with suitable independence.
Our second question relates to the reporting of the authorisations and the planned use of a CHIS. An annual report to Parliament seems to us to be a wholly inadequate way of going about that. Reporting each instance to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office can fulfil that role, as long as the reports happen either in real time or as close to that as is operationally possible. We would very much welcome the Minister’s observations on that.
Our third question relates to the scope of the illegality being authorised or rendered lawful for all purposes. The Law Society of Scotland has observed that potentially there are no limits on the types of criminal conduct that could be permitted under this authorisation, which raises the obvious concerns about the potential use of murder, torture and sexual violence. I understand the argument the Minister advanced about the prohibitions that would be placed upon any such activities by compliance with the ECHR or the Human Rights Act, which could act as backstops, but we on these Benches remain unpersuaded on that. Given that there is some doubt as to the long-term commitment of supporters of the  Government to those human rights backstops, it would be better to see those actions that are to be prohibited enshrined in the Bill.
We have heard about the possibility of a purity test being used, and I can understand those concerns, but that does not seem to an issue in either Canada or the United States of America, where just such legal prohibitions are already in place. Without that, there are real concerns that the Bill could open the way to legitimising the subcontracting of activities that should not be carried out either by or on behalf of the state. I suggest to the Minister that if the provisions of the ECHR and HRA are deemed sufficient, it would be beneficial to see that written more explicitly in the Bill, as that might provide further assurance.
By authorising law-breaking that is lawful for all purposes, we run the risk of creating an upper limit of illegality, in that it sets out the actions that are permitted without there necessarily being any restraint then on whether or not the actions taken within that parameter of legality remain legitimate, proportionate and appropriate. We would therefore welcome further clarity from the Minister on how Parliament might be assured that any illegal actions authorised for this purpose can be taken and still remain within those parameters, while also being reasonable and appropriate, without going beyond what is needed for that, even if it does not cross that threshold that has already been permitted.
Fourthly, if we are committing a harm to prevent a greater harm, that raises a fundamental question of legal liability. At the margins, the use of these powers could lead to adverse life-changing consequences for the innocent. If individual CHIS operatives are to be exonerated from what in other circumstances would be illegal actions, that might be understandable. What is less understandable is the manner in which the state may ultimately also be able to escape any liability for that, and that is hugely problematic for us.

Sarah Owen: I thank we all understand and agree that keeping the public safe often means difficult decisions, but the Bill in its current form is weak where it needs to be strong—strong particularly on safeguards around sexual violence, torture and the creep into anti-trade union practices such as blacklisting.

Richard Thomson: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She makes a number of important points, and we will need assurances on those going forward.
The situation is hugely problematic as it stands, and we do not believe that the Government should attempt to escape their vicarious liability on this issue.

David Davis: I am following with interest what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and, unusually, though he is an SNP Member I have a great deal of agreement with him. However, in terms of civil liability, perhaps the simplest test is to look at one of the worst cases in recent times, which is the Finucane murder. Whatever we think of Mr Finucane—I would have different politics from him—he was an innocent party, but even more so were his three children and his wife, who were there when a state-supported group—almost—murdered him with 14 bullets over his Sunday lunch. That is a good demonstration of the point that, if this civil exclusion  applies, those innocent parties—the wife and children of Finucane—would have no recourse. That surely cannot be right.

Richard Thomson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he makes the point very elegantly. If individuals are to be exonerated for actions that have been authorised, where is the redress for the innocent whose lives are impacted? It is right to look at the extremities in terms of where that might lead us.
In giving the state the ability to uphold rights, we accept that we must also give it the ability to have limited powers of coercion to uphold those rights. However, those powers must never be in conflict with the fundamental rights of individuals. In terms of the Bill, the only way we can ensure that is through good governance, effective scrutiny, limited scope and clarity on the limitations; ensuring that there is accountability for the use of the powers; and limiting opportunities for their misuse. I believe those are legitimate concerns, which many will share, both inside and outside this place, and we hope to see them addressed as the Bill continues its passage.

Mark Pritchard: I would like to put on record my thanks to all those who serve in our security agencies—they keep us all safe every day of every week—and to add my support for this important Bill.
Covert human intelligence sources, or agents, provide invaluable information to the UK’s intelligence agencies and those tasked with fighting serious and organised crime. These sources provide vital information—often time-sensitive—in saving lives. Even as I speak, they are probably saving lives—lives not in the abstract, but real lives; the lives and futures of men, women and children. We know that terrorists are no respecters of age, gender, faith, nationality or community. They seek to kill and to maim, to divide, to terrorise and to spread misery and fear.
Covert sources disrupt plots, secure prosecutions and give our intelligence agencies a critical human intelligence edge. Let me be clear: this type of human intelligence work is unique and cannot, as we have heard from the distinguished Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, be replicated through regulated signals intelligence or communication intercepts. Covert sources save lives. As the head of the Security Service recently said, without covert human intelligence sources many of the attacks planned over recent years would not have been foiled. Covert human intelligence sources deny terrorists success.
I think there has been some misunderstanding about some parts of this Bill. It seeks to put existing powers on an explicit statutory basis and existing practice on a clear and consistent statutory footing, and surely that should be welcomed by the House. I am very pleased that the Minister has been explicit today about safeguards. They are needed, necessary and very welcome.
For the record, I would not be supporting the Bill if those robust safeguards and those meaningful checks and balances were not in place. Clause 4 should offer reassurance to any colleague who still has concerns about oversight. In it, colleagues will find a reference to  significant oversight measures, with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner having significant powers of scrutiny and oversight.
I referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who rightly referenced improvements of oversight over recent years. However, it would provide further reassurance to colleagues from all parts of the House if those oversight measures were strengthened further to include an annual report to the Intelligence and Security Committee on the use of those authorisations, broken down by each organisation the Committee oversees and by the category of the conduct authorised. The Committee will be looking potentially to table an amendment to the Bill as it progresses through the House, although the Government are at liberty to listen to some of the comments that are being made today. I hope that amendment will reassure those on the Opposition Front Bench, as well.
I am also reassured that all authorisations will be compliant with the European convention on human rights, and rightly so. Indeed, I encourage all right hon. Members and hon. Members to read the Government’s ECHR memorandum, which accompanies the Bill.
Covert human intelligence sources are vital in the fight against terrorism, as well as against serious and organised crime. They are a critical operational element for the security of the whole of the United Kingdom and the whole of the Union. Given the improved oversight and scrutiny, the important application of the test of proportionality, the legislation’s compliance with the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, and with further amendments to it, I support the Bill.

Diana R. Johnson: I am very pleased to be called this evening to make a short contribution in this Second Reading debate. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak since becoming a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I start by paying tribute to all who work in our security services to protect us and our freedoms from those who do not operate under the rule of law and do not value our freedoms.
We have heard at some length the background for why the Bill is necessary. People who infiltrate criminal or terrorist groups do so at great risk to themselves to provide that unique source of intelligence. We know that many terrorist and serious criminal acts have been thwarted by that information. Innocent lives have been saved, including that of a current Member of this House. Moreover, because of the largely criminal nature of the people under investigation, the individual is sometimes required to participate in criminal activity themselves. It is therefore important that organisations such as MI5 protect those individuals who are putting themselves at such risk by authorising them to carry out criminal acts in certain limited circumstances and with specific safeguards.
The ISC can only comment on the organisations that it oversees: MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. The ISC strongly supports the principle behind the legislation, and we support the use of criminal conduct authorisations by the security and intelligence agencies on the condition that they are properly circumscribed, used only where it  is necessary and proportionate, in a way that is compatible with the Human Rights Act and subject to proper scrutiny. As this is a Government Bill, it is for the Minister to make the case for the specific provisions within it and to answer the legitimate questions and challenges of hon. Members, many of which he has faced this evening.
The Intelligence and Security Committee has taken evidence from the police in relation to a number of our past inquiries, so I think the Committee would support their use of the powers. I would, however, like to press the Minister, as other Members have already, on the list of bodies included in the Bill, some of which the Committee does not have oversight of, and for which it is not immediately obvious why they should be given such power.
The Minister talked about the mislabelling of food as an example of why the Food Standards Agency, which has already been raised with him, should be included in the Bill. In the Bill Committee, we will really want to see further information about the kind of cases that the Food Standards Agency would be dealing with that makes it appropriate for it to be in the Bill. The same goes for the Environment Agency, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has already raised questions. What does the Minister think about other Select Committees having oversight in the areas for which they are responsible—the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee having oversight with regard to the Food Standards Agency and the Environment Agency, for example?
Speaking personally, I would really like the Minister to give full consideration to what the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and the shadow Home Secretary have said about additional powers to strengthen the oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. I am pleased that the Minister has already said that he is willing to look at the timing of that oversight, which could be quite important. I would also like to be reassured about the authorisation procedures and the level at which advance authorisations can be signed off within organisations. What level of experience and knowledge would he expect a person to have, and where will that be set out?
I agree with what the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said, and I hope that the Minister will look at giving additional responsibilities to the Intelligence and Security Committee to have oversight of the use of these powers. That could really help with the concerns of parliamentarians about the use of the provisions by ensuring a level of ongoing parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that in Committee we can look at those proposals in detail in order to achieve balanced and workable legislation that safeguards those who put their lives at risk while upholding the rule of law, to which we all subscribe.

Bob Stewart: I am in awe of the constant, cold courage of those who run huge risks for us as covert human intelligence sources; in fact, in a past life I was involved slightly. I am clear that covert agents play a vital part in disrupting terrorist plots, and they often save lives. It is vital that such agents gain the trust of those on whom they have to report if they are  to gain the information that the authorities need to keep us all safe. In view of the largely criminal nature of people under investigation, covert agents are sometimes required themselves to participate in criminal activities; we all understand that. If they do not participate in those activities, it will cause their loyalty to that group to be questioned. Suspicions will immediately be raised and they could be in peril, or, sometimes, in mortal danger. It is therefore essential that covert agents are able to participate in some criminal activity. Organisations such as MI5 need to be able to authorise them to do so—obviously in certain circumstances and with the safeguards that we hope to put in the Bill.
In order to decide whether to authorise such covert agents to participate in criminal activity, intelligence organisations will have to consider whether the anticipated result of that involvement, which is getting information that could help save lives—information rather than intelligence, because there is a difference—outweighs the criminal conduct. This is a very fine balance, and it requires very, very experienced officers to make that judgment. Obviously, we all understand that this is an ethical dilemma for us, but I accept that it is necessary and I will be fully supporting the Bill.

Gavin Robinson: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to be called to speak so early.
I listened very clearly to the Security Minister, and I am grateful to him for his thoughtful engagement with me and my hon. and right hon. colleagues in my party. Although I think it is right that some of the issues have been raised in this debate, as they are worthy of further exploration, I want to place it on record that the Security Minister knows that he has our support on Second Reading. We look forward to thoughtful engagement over the weeks to come.
There have been references already to Northern Ireland in this debate; the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report, which was published just today. It spans two years of activity, culminating just before the election, and provides stark reading for those who believe that issues in Northern Ireland have moved on. It provides a very stark assessment of the proportion of MI5’s work that still pertains in Northern Ireland and the fact that there is a need for that work. Those of us who represent Northern Ireland understand that, while the security situation has evolved and got so much better over the past two decades, MI5’s work is still important to us. With that brings the need to operate beyond the realm of what is legal in the truest sense—of necessity our state is required to engage in acts that might not be considered lawful on the face of it. The Security Minister has gone through very clearly and properly what is proportionate, what is necessary, and the appropriate tests that are embedded in the process by an authorising officer, who must be accountable for those decisions through the oversight that has been referred to earlier in the debate. That is crucially important.
During my short time in this Chamber—the past five years—I have referred to the incidents that have occurred in my constituency, including the murder of a prison officer, and the attempted murder of a police officer  within the past year. I engage with that police officer regularly. The fear and concern that arose as a result of him being targeted going from his home to his local golf club with a device under his car because of his service in the Police Service of Northern Ireland highlights acutely the dangers that still pertain within our society.
In the past six weeks, MI5 has had an extraordinarily successful operation in Northern Ireland, and we now have within our prison system—not yet before the courts— almost the entirety of the New IRA’s army council. That is a huge success. It was down to not only the bravery of our security services in Northern Ireland but a covert human intelligence source. I am referring to open source data, so there is no concern about what I have shared. It has been raised within the courts. An agent of our state was embedded within the New IRA and its political apparatus for over a decade. Being involved in what he was involved in—being a member of the New IRA—is necessarily a criminal offence as it is a proscribed organisation. Holding information that is of use to terrorists is a criminal offence. Booking a property that the army council was meeting in and therefore enabling our security services to place listening devices and so on in that property was crucially important. That individual—just to encapsulate the dangers that come from this—has now left Northern Ireland and is in protective custody. His name is in the public domain and there is no need for me to share it today.
I noted on the “Irish Republican News” website a brief but quite explicit and chilling threat at the end of its analysis of what happened following the individual’s arrest. It says:
“The apparent exposure of a leading double agent within Saoradh”—
the political body—
“recalls December 2005, when top Sinn Féin official Denis Donaldson was exposed as an MI5 agent.”

Eleanor Laing: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be very careful about matters to which he refers and individuals whom he identifies either by name or otherwise, because I know he fully appreciates that some matters are sub judice and some matters are under investigation, and that we have to be extremely sensitive in these circumstances.

Gavin Robinson: I hope you appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that not only do I agree entirely with you but I have been very careful in what I have shared and I will not delve beyond that which is public.
I just want to finish the quote about the case that occurred in 2005:
“After four months living in isolation, he”—
Denis Donaldson—
was shot dead in an attack claimed by another…IRA group”.
That has to encapsulate for Members the severity —the seriousness—of the danger that arises for those who engage on our behalf and who serve our country. [Interruption.] I see that there seems to be some level of concern. Those who have listened to what I have said as I have gone through it should have total comfort. Not only is what I have said appropriate, but they should also know me and the way in which I approach these  issues, and understand that it would not be my intention, nor is it my purpose, to say anything inappropriate in this debate.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Just to confirm, I am certain that the hon. Gentleman has no intention of saying anything inappropriate and that he is very careful, but because this is so sensitive, I simply reiterate that there is a difference between that which is in the public domain and that which is sub judice. I have the duty of urging that anything that is sub judice should not be mentioned in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has already made his point very well, and it might not be necessary for him to go into further detail.

Gavin Robinson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that I was making has been made, so I see no need to re-emphasise it or to go over it again. The Minister has our support, and we will engage thoughtfully with him as this Bill progresses. I ask the Minister to look at clause 1(5), which is amending part of RIPA, where it outlines what is permitted within a criminal conduct authorisation. I simply ask the question whether
“for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime”
sufficiently encapsulates issues of self-defence and whether that needs to be expounded more clearly.
The Minister touched on the Bill not being retrospective. He is right that the Bill in itself is not retrospective, but it would be useful if the Solicitor General, in his concluding remarks, could touch on retrospective authorisation of criminal conduct. We know clearly from the Bill that, when somebody is authorised as a CHIS, they can be authorised either at that time or subsequently for criminal conduct. The question is not whether they are authorised in advance, but whether if they engage in criminal conduct that would require authorisation, that authorisation can be given after the commission of the conduct. I hope the Solicitor General will refer to that. I do not see any preclusion of it, as there is nothing contained in the Bill that suggests it has to be in advance. Can it come after the conduct has been engaged in, and people are aware of that and an authorisation is sought for it?
Madam Deputy Speaker, time is marching on, and I will let you proceed. Thank you very much.

Theresa Villiers: On 12 February 1989, the solicitor Pat Finucane was shot 14 times as he sat down for dinner with his wife and three children in his home in north Belfast. He died in front of them, and his wife Geraldine was seriously injured as well. The 2012 review of the case by Sir Desmond de Silva, QC, concluded that two agents of the state, Brian Nelson and William Stobie, were heavily involved in that brutal killing. This was a truly shocking finding, albeit that Sir Desmond concluded that there was no overarching state conspiracy to kill Mr Finucane. David Cameron issued an apology on behalf of the Government to the Finucane family, one of whom was of course elected to this House last year.
I am afraid this case shows the horrific consequences that can result where decisions about agents are handled badly, where clear and binding rules are not in place for handling covert human intelligence sources, and where proper oversight and accountability is not in place. But  I can assure the House that, during my time as Northern Ireland Secretary, I saw the clearest of evidence that modern police and security forces are utterly transformed since the appalling events that were the subject of the De Silva review. That is especially true of agent handling and the legal framework that governs it now. What I saw at first hand as Secretary of State was that today’s police and intelligence services have a rigorous focus on compliance with legal and human rights requirements in all aspects of intelligence gathering, including the use of agents, so that is why I support the Bill this evening.
Agents, as others have pointed out, provide invaluable information and play a crucial role in disrupting terrorist plots and serious crime. The simple fact is that we would become far more vulnerable to, for example, Islamist terrorist attacks if the intelligence services could no longer effectively use agents. More people would fall victim to terrorist attack. Certainly, the nature of the organisations these agents infiltrate unfortunately means that sometimes it is simply impossible for them to remain in place and provide information without some involvement in criminality. I wish this were not the case, but I would provide the reassurance that we already have one of the toughest and most comprehensive oversight regimes in the world for regulating our intelligence services.
This Bill will put that on an even clearer statutory footing by confirming the rules on authorisation of agent criminal activity. The core principle underlying all our laws regulating intelligence gathering is that activities can be carried out only if they are both necessary and proportionate, and under this Bill, that golden thread will continue to run through our rules on the use of agents and authorising criminal behaviour.
While there are horrific legacy cases such as those of Brian Nelson and William Stobie, there have been hundreds and hundreds of other men and women who have been agents whose story is very different. These are men and women who have put their lives at risk to provide information to help the police and security services; men and women who have saved many lives, but whose bravery has to remain unacknowledged and untold for their own safety. We will never know their names, and we will never hear their stories in this House, but for their sake and in order to ensure that we can continue to combat the lethal threats we face from terrorism and serious crime, I urge this House to back this Bill in the Division Lobby this evening.

Kevan Jones: In the fast-moving electronic age that we live in, I think there is a misunderstanding that somehow, the state can beam into everyone’s communications and listen to everything that is going on, and that that is the way in which modern-day intelligence is gathered. As outlined by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), that could not be further from the truth. The role of human intelligence is of vital importance, not only for our intelligence work in this country but for police work in other areas.
As a member of the ISC, I have seen examples of terrorism cases in which human intelligence has prevented the deaths of our citizens. Is this a pretty area we are   dealing with? Honestly, no, it is not. The individuals who the police and other security agencies are engaging with have to interact with people who are not pleasant. That is the nature of the territory we are dealing with, and in order to keep their covers in place, those individuals will have to engage in certain amounts of criminal activity. I have seen some examples of what they do; I am not going to go through them tonight, or refer to any of those cases, because that would be completely wrong. However, as has been referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the obvious one is membership of a proscribed organisation, which would be deemed as breaking the law.
We also need to highlight this idea that somehow, authorisation of these things is a free-for-all. I welcome this legislation, because it will put on to a statutory footing something that is quite a grey area in its legal position, but its opponents seem to think that there is no control of authorisation at all. As the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) has just outlined, the authorisations are very clear about what can and cannot be done.
For some unknown reason, a curveball has come into this debate that I had not really expected: the idea that this Bill will affect trade unions. I am not sure how it can do so. Likewise, regarding rape and serious sexual assault, I agree that those safeguards should be there, but I think they are already in the Bill. The individual who did the authorisation would not authorise that, and if a CHIS who was involved in general activities undertook one of those acts, they would not get immunity for doing it. Again, I think a lot of things have been thrown into the debate about this Bill that do not actually apply to it.

Rehman Chishti: With regard to the appropriate checks and balances and the need for authorisation to be proportionate and necessary, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wrong to straitjacket our agencies? There needs to be discretion. Our country works with judicial discretion, whereby judges can depart in exceptional circumstances. Without knowing what will come, it would not be appropriate to straitjacket the action that may or may not be taken with regard to what is proportionate and necessary.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point about proportionality, which is key. Clearly the authorising officer will not authorise something if they know that it is disproportionate to the act, which was covered earlier in the debate. I am also pretty confident about what is proposed in terms of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, but like the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), I would like to go one step further. We need more detailed oversight in the ISC. It is not necessarily about seeing individual warrants, but there could perhaps be an annual report listing the categories in which warrants were issued. That would be helpful for us to look at, and if we wanted more information about any of those, we could use the powers we have to request that. We may well table an amendment on that in Committee.
I turn to the issue of the other organisations listed  in the Bill. There is a tendency sometimes, when civil servants see a piece of legislation, to jump on to it. The  list of organisations weakens the strong case for why we need this legislation. I have not yet heard a good justification for why the Food Standards Agency needs these powers. My concern is that the police and the security services—MI5, MI6 and others—are used to dealing with CHIS and giving authorisation, and they have the training. The danger of extending this to other organisations is that the expertise that comes from regular use is not there, and that concerns me. For example, the Environment Agency usually works in co-operation with the police, and I would be happy for the police to have the lead in terms of CHIS, rather than the Environment Agency. In Committee, we need justification for why all these organisations need to be included and reassurance that this is not a case of civil servants seeing this as a good way to add some powers to a Bill.
I support this Bill. This is a complex area, and some of the things that we are asking individuals to undertake are not pleasant, but it is vital work for keeping us safe. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), I pay tribute to not only the brave individuals who provide information but the men and women of our security services who work day in, day out to keep us safe.

Julian Smith: I support the Bill, and I congratulate the Security Minister on bringing his practical knowledge from many years to guiding the Bill through the House. I want to make four brief points on the security services.
This Bill makes the ongoing function explicitly clear in law, but it is really important that we fully understand that there are already very clear processes in place regarding agent handling and how they interact with criminal acts. As the third direction hearing and adjudication by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal showed, no further powers were required. It was just a win—it was 3-2—but the IPT said that it was lawful. The 2018 Investigatory Powers Commissioner report, which is well worth reading, confirms that there is adequate guidance in place within MI5 regarding agent handling and that the then Prime Minister directed the commissioner to ensure that that guidance was being enforced. The report also points to the quality of applications by MI5 for the use of CHIS, noting that there are strong controls already in place.
The second point is that this Bill builds on an already rigorous oversight regime for our intelligence services. This stringent control environment has developed over many years, but the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 established a new single oversight body. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has had a transformative impact on the level of oversight on all aspects of intelligence gathering. As IPCO’s annual reports show, the double lock on warrantry applications, for example, involves detailed interaction between the authorising Secretary of State and their officials, and IPCO and its judicial commissioners. Anybody who has been involved in the process will know that it is a very strong double lock. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which is independent of Government, provides a further independent appeal route, which is available to all at no cost.
The third point, with regard to CHIS, agents and criminality, is that this is an area of intelligence-gathering activity that is invariably difficult to manage in the same  way as other intelligence gathering—for example, warrantry —is. We cannot hope to micromanage such activity from this House. The House and colleagues have to take comfort from the initiatives of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the application of the European convention on human rights to CHIS activity, and the role of independent commissioners to provide rigorous oversight. The Bill is clear that these powers do not give carte blanche to agents. The Crown Prosecution Service can still consider prosecutions for activities that fall outside those that have been authorised.
Finally, it is vital to note, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has just stated, that the Bill is not retrospective and will not impact on any historical investigation.
The women and men in our intelligence agencies, and those who supervise and work with them, work behind the scenes, are never publicly recognised. They are civil servants of the highest quality and integrity, and I believe the Bill will further strengthen their ability to do their work.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who made a characteristically thoughtful, measured and knowledgeable contribution to the debate. It is a debate that I am very proud to be part of, because I think the House has approached this subject tonight in exactly the right way. I suspect that we have probably done that because of how the Minister opened the debate. I am also grateful to see him still in his place. He sets a good example that others in Government might do well to follow.
I am, however, a little bit weary when I consider this Bill, because it looks like almost yet another Bill into which so many other things have been ladled, so that at the end of the day, after it has been through the other place, the Government might get what they want. The right hon. Member for York Outer also has a history as a Government business manager and has no doubt been in meetings where he is given instructions to go and defend the indefensible, so that the Government can then concede the indefensible and might then be left with what is defensible. I have to say, it is a tactic that is just a little bit tired and lacks subtlety and nuance. I suggest that this is a good point at which the Government might seek to do things differently.
Considering the importance of the matter, my real frustration with this Bill is that it is a colossal missed opportunity. We all know the importance of putting these things on a statutory footing, and it is a significant advance that we should be doing so. However, that we should do so in such a haphazard way, and which compares so badly with other jurisdictions, such as Canada, which has undertaken the same business in recent years, puts a duty on this House to engage with the Minister and to seek to improve the Bill at later stages.
The House will be aware that I tabled a reasoned amendment, which was not selected. I did that because of the serious concerns I have about the Bill. In the normal course of things, when a reasoned amendment is not selected, one considers whether it would be  appropriate to divide the House. On balance, I am persuaded that that is not the right thing to do, but it is important that we should have the opportunity at later stages to give substantial consideration to three particular areas. First, there is the inadequacy of the authorisation, and on that I can do no better than to quote the words of Lord Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, from his article in The Times this morning. He says:
“There is no comfort in allowing senior figures in the police or the intelligence agencies the power to sanction lawbreaking, without the need to first obtain independent warrants from judges or some other authority. Under this bill it will be easier for a police officer to commit a serious crime than to tap a phone or search a shed.”
The second area that causes me serious concern is the total lack of any limitation on the offences that would be covered. We are back in familiar territory here. This is not dissimilar to the territory we were covering when we considered the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Why would it not, for example, include torture? I would say to the Government’s business managers that if, in Committee, this House were to introduce a limitation on murder, sexual offences and torture, the Bill would be virtually bomb-proof when it got to the other place.
Thirdly, there is the question of the scope. The Minister referred, with quite disarming elan, to the “10 other public authorities” that are covered in the Bill. I referred earlier to the Food Standards Agency, and others have referred to the Environment Agency and the Gambling Commission. This is a matter of concern because, as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, including these organisations in the same breath as the police and military intelligence and other serious operators in this field is seeking to do too much. In fact, it would undermine the substance of the work of the more serious bodies.
I am afraid that the answers we have had from the Minister are somewhat lacking in conviction. The idea that the protections or limitations can be found in the Human Rights Act and that they are necessary, because to have them on the face of the Bill would somehow give a checklist to the bad guys that they could use to test and to imperil agents in the field, is, if we consider it in its entirety, somewhat lacking in conviction. The Minister seems to be suggesting that serious organised criminals can get legal advice or will look for themselves to the face of this Bill, but that they will not look to the face of the Human Rights Act. If these limitations are there, they are there for all to see, regardless of where they are. I would also be more persuaded if it had not until fairly recently been the policy of the Conservatives to repeal the Human Rights Act. If we were to see them return to that position, I wonder what protections would be left.
The other point about the protection coming from the Human Rights Act is the one that was made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in an intervention on the Minister. The reliance on the Human Rights Act stands in stark contrast to the position taken by the Government in their submissions to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, where they were adamant that, where an agent is authorised  to commit severe abuses such as torture, the Human Rights Act does not apply because—I quote from the Government pleadings—
“the state, in tasking the CHIS…is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as somehow responsible for it…it would be unreal to hold the state responsible.”
It seems to me that the Government are pleading one case here tonight and a quite different and contradictory case in the IPT.
These are all matters to which we can return in Committee. I think we must, and judging by what we have heard from Government Back Benchers today, we almost certainly will. This is an important matter, which it is good to have put on a statutory footing, but the way in which the Government are doing it is cack-handed. It requires this House to do its job and to improve the Bill before it today.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), both of whom made important and powerful speeches. I agree with what both of them said, and the two are not irreconcilable.
It seems to me that the Government, having brought forward a necessary and appropriate measure—it is right to put these matters on a statutory footing—need to bear in mind the need to tighten up the language in a number of places. I support the basic thrust of the Bill, but there is nothing more profound than to authorise the agents of the state to break the criminal law. That can be done only in the most exceptional circumstances, and those circumstances are not things that can be trailed in public, so obviously we need a degree of discretion about how we do it. I will deal swiftly with just a few matters.
First, given that principle, I am concerned about how we deal with the pre or post-authorisation arrangements. Having put the matter on a statutory footing and having previously established the independent commissioner and then the tribunal, I would be worried about the exclusion of pre-authorisation save in the most exceptional circumstances. I am not saying that every type of criminal offence should be excluded at this stage, but when we come to Committee, we should examine whether we should in any circumstance contemplate setting on the face of an Act of Parliament provision for someone committing the offence of murder, for example, or something equally extreme, other than when they would probably be entitled to run the defence of self-defence anyway.
Given the ability of any High Court jurisdiction to deal immediately and swiftly with interlocutory matters, there is no reason to think that the same arrangements cannot be made in relation to the commissioner. The quality of the commissioners— Sir Adrian Fulford and now Sir Brian Leveson—is of such an extent that I would have thought that their early authorisation would be a great support to our security services in doing what they have to do. We must think about where the balance lies.
The second point I wish to deal with is the list of organisations. The obvious ones are there, and of course they must be supported. Like others, however, I question   the need to list bodies such as the Food Standards Agency and, up to a point, the Financial Conduct Authority. Is this really a Bill about counteracting terrorism and life-or-death threats, or is it actually just about enabling the National Crime Agency—a worthy body in itself—to deal with economic crime? That may be a legitimate concern, but I do not think it should be put in this type of legislation, unless it is spelled out a bit more carefully.
The Minister of State and I have personal and shared casework experience relating to constituents of overreach and mission creep on the part of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise, which frankly behaved appallingly. Ultimately, it was overridden by the courts, but I am worried that it might be thought that the imprecise definition of serious crime could be stretched to cover some of the cases we have dealt with. The Minister looks as though he thinks that is impossible, but serious crime is not defined in statute; it is a matter of fact and degree. It requires either a definition or, more likely, a more robust pre-application process.

James Brokenshire: I appreciate the contribution that my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, is making and perhaps we can continue this conversation. I point him to the issues of proportionality and necessity, the requirement to consider matters that are not criminal to the end itself and the safeguards that the Human Rights Act provides, which I set out earlier. Therefore, there is a strong framework, as well as the subsequent oversight, but I will listen carefully to what he says. I am reflective on some of the timeliness of oversight, as I indicated, and I appreciate his points.

Bob Neill: I understand the spirit in which my right hon. Friend makes that point. I suspect that many of those fears could be set at nought if we can do this sensibly. The point is that without either having an obligation to comply with the ECHR on the face of the Bill and certain most grave offences being excluded in the Bill, or, on the other hand, greater clarity on the timeliness and the way in which that will work, there are still issues that we need to deal with.

Alistair Carmichael: Is not another factor that comes into play after necessity and proportionality human nature? It is human nature for people who work all the time in these specific areas—whether that is customs and excise, the Gambling Commission or food standards—to persuade themselves that the thing that they are doing is the most important thing, and they see the whole world differently. The most zealous enforcers of anything that I have ever come across were television licensing enforcement officers. I can say only that I take some small comfort from the fact that they are not on the face of this Bill.

Bob Neill: To my shame, I was once instructed to prosecute a list of television licence enforcements in the Epping magistrates court, when it still existed—a most inappropriate waste of court time, I have to say, thereafter. However, the point is well made.
Everybody supports where we want to go, but a bit of tightening up in Committee would not be awry on all those matters. We have to reassure the law-abiding citizen about, not a deliberate mission creep—not anything done by mala fides—but the over-zealousness of the  public official, and that, so often, is actually where things are eroded in our public life. It is about the person who genuinely believes that he or she is doing the right thing, but who does things in an over-zealous way and encroaches, time and again, upon the protections that are necessarily there. That is what I want the Minister and the Solicitor General to take away.
We all want this Bill to go through swiftly, but it would do no harm to reflect a little, improve it and, above all, have faith in the process that we have set in statute with the independent complaints commissioner. For heaven’s sake, if people such as Brian Leveson and Adrian Fulford are not to be relied upon, why not bring them in at the very earliest point in the process, rather than having them retrospectively sweep up and pass judgment? I trust them and I think the public trust them more than almost anybody, and I suspect that that would support morally and effectively the agents that we have to employ under these very difficult circumstances.

Steve McCabe: I welcome plans to place these activities on a statutory footing. I doubt that any of us can feel comfortable about criminal actions undertaken at the behest of the state, but it is naive in the extreme to pretend that we do not live in a world where undercover operations are necessary. The reality is that we need people to carry out these activities, often in great secrecy and sometimes outside the law, as it stands. The question is surely whether such actions are sanctioned, controlled and approved, or involve rogue elements in a very opaque area. I admire those whose actions keep us safe, and I am only too aware of the risks and temptations that might face individuals embedded in alien environments for long periods. Any legislation must ensure maximum supervision by controllers and handlers.
I want to be sure that the Bill ends up legitimising conduct which is necessary. I recall the dissatisfaction with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 as it became apparent that many more agencies were using it to snoop in a way that had not really been envisaged during its passage and that had little to do with security. I acknowledge that the Bill extends beyond national security and covers crime, fraud and other abuses, but we need legislation that is narrow in scope and tightly controlled. We need a presumption against criminal acts unless absolutely necessary and, at all times, behaviour that is proportionate. I want to be certain that the doubts raised by Amnesty that the Bill could end up providing informers and agents with a licence to kill, are wrong. I want to know that, in accordance with section 9.3 of the code of practice, all material obtained through the authorisation of a CHIS is subject to proper safeguards and any breaches properly reported. We need to be certain, as section 2.12 of the code highlights, that appropriate care will be taken to ensure that it is clear what is and is not authorised, and that all CHIS activities are properly risk assessed. I also wonder if 12 months is the appropriate period.
It seems to me that the Bill can be improved to address those matters. Some items that appear in the code and other safeguards might be better on the face of the Bill. Like others, I want to be clear that what we legitimatise is consistent with this country’s obligations under the European convention on human rights and  the Human Rights Act. At a time when this House is grappling with some Ministers appearing unduly relaxed about breaking the law, we must be certain that this Bill does not weaken respect for the law, or risk creating a two-tier system with laws for ordinary citizens from which members of Government agencies are exempt. We must know this country will abide by the highest ethical standards, no matter how inconvenient it might sometimes be. We have to know there is no intention of legitimising routine law breaking. I feel we need further assurances about control and supervision, and more about the nature of reporting to the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. We also need guarantees about further opportunities for Parliament, if the Bill makes it on to the statute book, to scrutinise how it works in practice.
There are those who say we should oppose the Bill on Second Reading. For me, that would mean voting against the principle of a Bill that tries to clarify what is already a very murky area. I believe it is in our interests to try to achieve a viable piece of legislation, but it would be a dereliction of duty if we did not seek to improve the Bill and the safeguards around covert operations. I want legislation that is effective, ethical and does what it says on the tin. The Bill needs improvement and I hope that, if it receives a fair wind tonight. the Government will approach the next stage with an open mind, because that is in everyone’s interests.

Jeremy Wright: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and to speak in this debate, in which there have been two significant points of consensus. The first is that it is right to provide for authority to be given to commit criminal offences in appropriate circumstances. The most obvious example of that is the infiltration of criminal organisations the membership of which is in itself an offence. The second point of consensus is that if the first is so, it is better for it to be on a clear statutory basis. For that reason, I welcome the Bill.
That is not to say, though, that there are not legitimate concerns about the Bill, and many of them have been expressed already. There is more to say about the distinction to be made between civil liability and criminal liability—doubtless we will return to that issue as the Bill progresses—but the majority of the concerns expressed so far have been about scope and safeguards, so I shall briefly say something about both those things.
On scope, it seems to me that it is absolutely right that the provisions of the Bill should be tightly circumscribed so that the criminal law is broken to the minimum degree necessary to prevent greater crime. It has been said more than once that the Bill leaves open the possibility that crimes such as murder and torture could be committed with apparent authority. I am not sure that that is so. Clause 1(5) sets out what will become section 29B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. What will be subsections (6) and (7) of new section 29B require a person who may authorise criminal conduct to take into account, first, whether the same objective could be achieved without committing a crime and, secondly, other relevant matters, including the Human Rights Act. That is a somewhat diffident way to express it, but  it has a significant effect. Section 6 of the Human Rights Act makes it clear that public authorities, which is what we are concerned with here, may not act in a way incompatible with a convention right, including the right to life and the right not to be tortured. For as long as the UK remains a signatory to the convention and the Human Rights Act remains in force, it must be a relevant matter in the scenarios that have been raised, so the Bill’s meaning in that respect is clear.
Frankly, my concern is with criminal conduct beneath the level of murder and torture but which still may be quite serious. Here, we rely on the wording of what will be subsections (4) and (5) of section 29B of RIPA, as set out in the Bill, to counter the risk that too wide a latitude is given to break the law than is warranted and the consequent risk that an agent takes disproportionate criminal action. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the tightening of language is important here. Under the terms of the Bill as they stand, criminal conduct authorisation may not be granted unless the person granting it believes three things set out on page 2 of the Bill. They are,
“that the authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (5)…that the authorised conduct is proportionate …and…that arrangements exist that satisfy such requirements as may be imposed by order made by the Secretary of State.”
The first question that has to be asked is what kind of belief is needed. Is it honest belief, reasonable belief? Surely, it must be the latter. It would be helpful if that could be clarified at an early stage. It matters so much because of the weight put on new subsection (4)(b), which states
“that the authorised conduct is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct”.
Proportionality is vital to the rationale and effect of the Bill. It is also vital, of course, to answering many of the perfectly legitimate points that have been raised about the inclusion of some other agencies—several of which have been mentioned—in the list of those that can authorise criminal conduct. It must be the case that it is not proportionate to commit a relatively serious criminal offence to prevent the commission of a relatively minor one. Proportionality is at the heart of what happens in relation not just to agencies such as MI5 but all the other agencies on that list.
Finally, I want to say a word or two about safeguards. It has not been raised particularly in the course of the debate so far, but there are those who say that we should not offer authorisation in advance but instead rely on prosecutorial discretion to deal with those cases where agents commit criminal offences. I yield to no one in my faith in prosecutorial discretion—I have exercised it myself a few times and I know that it can have a significant role to play—but I think it would be wrong to put all of the burden there, and to leave those already taking considerable risk exposed to almost equally considerable legal uncertainty, when there is another way of doing it. It would also be a step back, for those individuals who are taking those risks, from where we are now, where authority and therefore reassurance is given in advance, albeit not on the legal basis that we all seek to achieve.
I have rather more sympathy for the points that have been made about judicial oversight. If we cannot get to a place where prior judicial approval is in place—I am   perfectly willing to be persuaded by my right hon. Friend the Minister that there are significant practical difficulties with that—it seems to me fundamentally important that the oversight is as proximate as possible to the action. If it cannot happen in advance, it must happen as soon as possible afterwards. That is an area in which we must all focus as the Bill moves into Committee. I certainly hope it gets there, because I believe it is a good Bill, but, as others have said, it is capable of improvement.

Claire Hanna: Like others, while acknowledging that regulation of covert human intelligence sources should be on a legislative footing and that they have a role in modern policing, we have concerns about the Bill. I would like to offer some cautionary tales and some lessons from fairly recent history in Northern Ireland about what can go wrong when the state engages in crime, even if Members understand, or potentially even endorse, the outcomes that those agents are seeking to achieve.
In that context, the scale of this Bill is quite something. It expresses no limit on the type of crimes that can be authorised if the agent believes the action is proportionate, the authorising officer need only take into account whether the objective sought could be achieved through means other than crimes, and Members have already addressed the almost bizarrely wide range of agencies that are in scope. I am sure that people have spoken about the early period of operation of RIPA and the scenarios in which those provisions were used incorrectly.
The arrangements for operational oversight and post-operational accountability are weaker than those for phone tapping or law enforcement searches, despite having a potentially much bigger impact. As former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Ken Macdonald has said, the Bill will make it easier for a policeman to commit a serious crime than to search a shed.
The Bill would block redress through the courts for those who might experience adverse effects. It is probably disingenuous for the Bill to rely on the Human Rights Act as a safeguard, because this Government have made it clear that they do not believe that that Act applies to the actions and potential abuses of their agents, up to and including torture. The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which we considered just two weeks ago in this House, proposes to severely restrict the possibility of prosecuting those serious criminal wrongdoings, which of course have been illegal under international law since 1948. This Bill will not and cannot be read in isolation from those other pieces of legislation. The fact that the Human Rights Act has been a whipping boy for many, particularly on the Government Benches, means that people will not have faith that it will be allowed to stand in the way the provisions of this Bill.
The existing extraterritorial provisions of RIPA suggest that, in theory, this Bill could apply outside the UK and, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland—that MI5 could, from its Loughshore base in Belfast, authorise a serious criminal act just over the border in Donegal or Dublin. That prompts a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to address. If the UK authorities were sanctioning or authorising a crime,  would they be compelled to notify their counterparts in Irish agencies? Has this been discussed with Dublin? It is not a case of whether they would do these things; it is a case of whether the Bill gives them space to do so.
I speak from some experience in Northern Ireland when I say that serious crimes up to and including murder, particularly when committed by the state, are very possible. That leads first to a generation of victims and survivors, then to deep alienation from the state and further on to the perpetuation of conflict. I would caution Members about going down that road.
Many in the House might say in good faith that agents committing a serious crime was rare, and I have no doubt that most of those involved in this form of policing would not and could not conduct that sort of activity. Unfortunately, we know from very recent history that it was not just one or two bad apples. I will speak carefully because files have been referred to the DPP, and I understand the caution, but there is a continuing investigation into the agent known as Stakeknife. That investigation was discussed at length at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last month by John Boutcher, the former chief constable of Bedfordshire police, who is leading the investigation. He has highlighted how probably dozens of people were murdered by those in control of the IRA, but with the knowledge and sanction of those in command and control of British security agencies.
RUC special branch agent Mark Haddock is believed to have been involved in over 20 murders. As other Members have mentioned, Ken Barrett, a British agent, was involved in the murder of lawyer Pat Finucane, which former Prime Minister David Cameron conceded involved shocking levels of collusion. Multiple agents killed with impunity for Britain, and they were tangled up with both loyalist and republican paramilitaries. Current proposals from the Government relating to Northern Ireland already make the families feel like the lives of their loved ones did not matter and that the rule of law does not seem to be relevant in the case of their murders, but the Bill really risks bringing back the ghosts of our policing past.
I want to be very clear: the SDLP acknowledges the realities of life, policing, crime and terrorism. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) gave a very fair assessment of the continuing a security threat in Northern Ireland, which we are far from blind to. However, the necessary mechanisms have to be regulated under statute to avoid doubt and to uphold the rule of law, which only works if provisions are underpinned by appropriate human rights frameworks and oversight. We are not in the wild west, where the means justify  the ends.
I say again that, from the SDLP’s perspective, these are not words that we casually say. We are not a party that points out all the problems and will not engage in the solutions. When the SDLP joined the Policing Board in 2001, our members did so under very serious threats and intimidation by the IRA, but we did that heavy lifting on the Policing Board precisely because we needed a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. We were not just going to leave the details of policing for others to deal with.
That new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland is among the most successful elements of the post-Good Friday agreement era. Policing was so divisive for many  generations, but the PSNI and its oversight mechanisms are a bastion of policing in the modern era. In just five years, the Policing Board and its partners in the police, the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the community, and particularly the brave young women and men who stepped up and joined the police, together implemented the mechanisms and the oversight recommendations—85% of them—in the Patten report. That included the overhaul and reform of intelligence policing, because there were not at that point any rules governing what an agent could or could not do.
That was the old regime, and it did not serve the rule of law or the purpose of progressing Northern Ireland. The Bill runs the risk of recreating the new in the image of the old. That would betray the work that so many people did, fearlessly and relentlessly, to improve the outcomes from policing. The Bill compounds the problem, with even less oversight than the policing model that we tried so hard to change.
I must also say that this legislation will be viewed in the context of other actions by the Government. The statement on 18 March relating to legacy turned on their head commitments that we had previously received on truth, justice and accountability, and it breaches a treaty. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill turns commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland on the their head, and it breaches a treaty. The Overseas Operations (Service Personal and Veterans) Bill turns requirements for the investigation of crimes and breaches on their head. That is three proposals and three blows to confidence. People in my constituency are watching agog at the actions of this Government and the exercise of arbitrary, unilateral, reckless state power, and I caution Members that constituents in other areas will begin to do that as well. Confidence is being damaged left, right and centre, and a Bill such as this, if unamended, will only compound that error.

Apsana Begum: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate. Like many others, I am astounded at the gravity and significance of this Bill. The Government have said that the Bill seeks to place existing practice on a clear and consistent statutory footing and reflect existing practice, but of course many have criticisms of existing practice, and the case law shows that the legalities in this area have not yet been fully considered. This Bill goes way, way beyond the status quo, and it comes just over a week after the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which could result in torture and other serious crimes being protected from prosecution.
Barely a week passes without this Government announcing yet another departure from recognised rules of domestic and international law. Just before the summer, the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill passed through Parliament, delaying the long-awaited review of Prevent, which fosters discrimination against Muslims, and introducing significant curtailments of civil liberties, which will disadvantage ethnic minorities. Last week, we debated the Coronavirus Act 2020, about which human rights and anti-racist campaigners have raised  concerns that powers are being used in discriminatory ways, particularly against black, Asian and minority ethnic people.
The trajectory is chillingly clear. As Unite the union says, there is much to be concerned about in this Bill in respect of the impact on freedom and justice in the UK. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern about the human rights implications of the Bill. Is it not the case that the Human Rights Act cannot be seen as a safeguard against the authorisation of agent criminality because the Government have previously taken the position that the HRA does not apply to crimes committed by their covert agents? Is it not the case that because an individual cannot currently be prosecuted under the HRA or the European convention on human rights, an agency or Government can only be sued after the event for damages, meaning that there would not be any protection for victims nor any disincentive for agents under this Bill? Is it not the case that covert agents would not only be committing crimes, but be inciting crimes to build their cover and undermine the moral authority of protest movements?

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but the hon. Lady obviously does not know the way in which covert agents are working. They are under strict protocols now; there is no legislation covering this issue. Although I accept the need for some more protections in the Bill, it gives authorisation in legal statute, which is not there at the moment.

Apsana Begum: I take the point, but I believe that under the HRA a prosecution cannot currently be brought, so that is not a safeguard that is actually in statute. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.
Is it not the case that covert agents would not just be committing crimes, but be inciting crimes to build their cover and undermine the moral authority of protest movements? It is, I suppose, why organisations such as Privacy International, Reprieve and others argue that the Government cannot convincingly claim that the HRA will provide a sufficient safeguard. Perhaps the Minister will say more about that today.
Let me come to what is for many the crux of the Bill. There is a grave and real danger that it could end up providing informers and agents with a licence to kill. Put simply, it is deeply alarming that the proposed law does not explicitly prohibit MI5 and other agencies from authorising crimes such as a torture and killing. This is not an abstract or philosophical question. We have seen the consequences of undercover agents in paramilitary organisations operating with what some believe to be apparent impunity while committing grave human rights abuses, including murder. Independent inquiries have found that, at times, when intelligence units of the security forces were running informants they were acting as though the law did not apply to them. This legislation also cuts across a case that is going through the courts—the third direction case—and does not give Parliament the chance to hear the higher Court’s views about the state of the law.
We have heard much rhetoric today about safety and security. Are there safeguards for potential victims of crime, for our trade unions and for people expressing their hard-won right to protest? Are there protections for ethnic minorities—Muslims, in particular—who we know are disproportionately at risk of state violence?

Rehman Chishti: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Apsana Begum: I will make progress. This legislation seeks to allow the state legally to act with impunity in its surveillance missions. It hard not to see the Bill as another iteration of the expansion of state surveillance and the criminalisation of marginalised communities. We should not let our fundamental values of human rights, justice and equality be undermined.
On the international stage, we must stand up for the values we share: of justice, human rights and democracy, and of working with others to keep people safe by ending conflict and tackling the climate emergency. It is because I believe in those fundamental values and because I am committed to keeping all our communities safe that I will stand up against the Government’s increasingly draconian approach, which seeks to strip away the very freedoms that people in my constituency and all over the UK hold dear.

John Hayes: Following the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) reminds me of how much we miss her predecessor, who was such a well-respected Member of the House.
Hegel concluded:
“What is reasonable is real; that which is real is reasonable.”
The reality of the means by which we counter the wicked plots and plans of those intent on maiming and murdering Britons—of all kinds and types, by the way—are made reasonable by the character of those deadly schemes. In essence, we must match the most ruthless adversaries in our diligence, determination and decisiveness. To do so is entirely reasonable.
As the Minister said, since 2017 numerous terrorist attacks have been anticipated and thwarted through the skilful efforts of the security and intelligence agencies and the police, but some have not. The death at terrorist hands of 22 innocent civilians in Manchester, including many children, haunts us all. At the heart of our democracy here in Westminster, where four individuals were executed on the bridge and PC Keith Palmer lost his own life heroically resisting the murderer sent to hell by the bullets of other heroes, we saw again what Islamist terror can mean for the innocent. Those and all other tragedies of this type haunt us, but they also harden our resolve. As we are strengthened by grief, those we mission to keep us safe from such ills each and every day need to be sure that we stand for them and by them, and that is just what the Bill does.

Rehman Chishti: Like my right hon. Friend, I fully support the Bill going through. He mentioned the Daesh-inspired extremism. Does he agree with me that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens, and the legislation that has been put through this Parliament on counter-terrorism has been designed with that in mind, irrespective of creed, colour or background? What I have seen with the Prevent and Channel programmes, having sat on the Home Affairs Committee, is that there are now far more individuals from right-wing-inspired extremism than there are from Daesh-inspired extremism. The threat to our country is therefore from both kinds of extremism, and the legislation we put through this Parliament is designed with the duty to protect our citizens of all creeds, colours and background.

John Hayes: That is certainly true, as my hon. Friend will know that I was once responsible for overseeing the Prevent programme and indeed introduced the Prevent duty. Extremism of all kinds that leads to violence and threatens life and limb needs to be countered. The mechanisms we use to do so are common to all those who seek, in my earlier words, to maim and murder us.
When I guided the Investigatory Powers Bill through this House as the Security Minister, I learned that infiltration is a vital tool for our security and intelligence agencies to penetrate terrorist groups. Those brave enough to do so must be credible to those they need to trust them, so it is axiomatic that they must look and sound like those they live among and do as they do. Put simply, if they are to be believed to be a gang member, they need to act like a gang member. If they fail to convince those they infiltrate, it is no exaggeration to say they may be killed—indeed, that is the essence of undercover agents’ work.
The Bill, as has been emphasised repeatedly, provides a clear legal basis for that long-standing, invaluable covert tactic, which enables the detection and discovery of crucial, critical intelligence that other investigative tools might never detect. We have heard, as I have said repeatedly, that 27 terrorist attacks have been averted, in part because of interception and infiltration. Preventing those atrocities has saved real lives of individuals loved and known, who live today thanks to the tireless work of our police and intelligence services.
Of course there must be accountability and scrutiny, as I recognised during the passage of the Investigatory Powers Bill, in which we introduced the double lock to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has drawn the House’s attention. We also established the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and, indeed, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. It is critical that we look at things in a way that reassures members of the public that powers are used only where necessary and proportionate, as the Minister emphasised. Our standards must be maintained as we struggle with threats from those who have no meaningful ethical standards.
As well as being proportionate and necessary, the security agencies’ test for all their work, as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out, is that the particularity of any criminal endeavour entered into must—as the Bill makes clear—be specific, limited and detailed in permission granted. Where the objective can be secured without criminal activity, it will be; criminal activity will apply only where there is no other credible alternative. It is essential that it be limited to only the activity specifically authorised in the criminal conduct authorisation granted exclusively by highly trained and experienced officers. Moreover, there will be effective scrutiny, with authorisations overseen by the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the ISC kept informed of the use of CCAs, and the tribunal able to investigate any complaints against public authorities’ use of the power.
Reasonableness is defined by the bitter reality of our continuing struggle against the individuals and groups whose defining purpose is to do us harm. It is my estimation that as terrorists become more adaptable and flexible and as terrorism itself metamorphoses, we will need to look again at the power, resources and legal means by which those whom we wish to keep us safe do  their work. Historically, major pieces of legislation have gone through this House perhaps every decade or a little more, but I suspect that we will legislate more often as terrorism changes, particularly as a result of the changing nature of communications and other technology.
We must resource and equip the brave men and women who put themselves at great risk in our interest to keep us safe and to safeguard our way of life. To legislate to give them the much-needed powers provided by the Bill is both timely and, most of all, it is reasonable.

Liz Saville-Roberts: It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).
I approach the Bill, as I am sure we all do, knowing that what is at stake is trust in our legal system and public consent for those agencies that we empower to protect us all. Given the provisions enabling criminality, sufficient scrutiny is therefore vital. It is right that the Government have sought to remedy the previous murky arrangements and bring clarity through legislation, but the Bill needs to be beyond reproach when it is enacted.
As hon. Members have already identified, the Bill with its ambiguity and its powers gives a legal power to individuals to commit crimes. That is rightly alarming to the public. The phrase
“authorised conduct is rendered ‘lawful for all purposes’”
on page 3 of the explanatory notes must be questioned and clarified. It is not sufficient to state that all public bodies are bound by the Human Rights Act to comply with the European convention on human rights; it must be set out in the Bill, for the sake of public confidence, that the very worst acts of violence, including sexual violence, torture and murder are not permissible. The Bill is looked at by all people, not just those to whom it applies. Confidence in our Government and in our institutions is significant.

Kevan Jones: I agree that explaining the Bill to  the public is very difficult. We therefore need to have the safeguards that the right hon. Lady talks about, but  the example that she just gave would not get through the authorisation stage, which is overseen by the commissioner at the moment. Does she think that there is another way of doing it, without having a long list of crimes and of what can and cannot be done?

Liz Saville-Roberts: That is a very fair point, which we have discussed to a considerable degree. None the less, there is a public revulsion at the prospect of sexual violence, murder and crimes of that nature, which warrant being mentioned in the Bill for that very reason.
Equally profound and disturbing at first appearance is the power to grant authorisations, which will be given to organisations to decide for themselves internally, without judicial oversight and with limited redress for victims. It is quite extraordinary that there is no provision for how innocent victims of authorised criminal conduct might be compensated, which is surely to be expected in the Bill. I also believe—this point has already been well expressed, but I want to add my voice to it—that trade  unions have legitimate concerns, given that covert surveillance has been undertaken in the past against entirely legitimate trade union activity in conjunction with criminal blacklisting.
While quick to quote the book of human rights, the Government have failed to quote chapter and verse of what is permissible and what is beyond the pale. Would the use of sensory overload or stress positions by agents constitute torture and be a violation of human rights? Would they then be criminally culpable? What guarantee can the Minister give that a future UK Government, or even this one, might not seek to legislate for derogations from the European convention on human rights? Given the horizon-spanning nature of the criminal conduct covered by the Bill, where is the threshold for authorising acts, such as phone tapping, that rightly concern the public? What does “proportionate” actually mean? If we do not define it, who does? By what algorithm do we assess the range of proportionality? Where is the shift and the mission creep there?
The Government have also empowered a range of organisations with this new authorisation of criminality, from the Environment Agency to England’s Department of Health and Social Care, but how do the Government intend to prevent creep by Government Departments and the erosion of law? What safeguards will the Government put in place within those Departments? Does the Investigatory Powers Commissioner have sufficient measures and capacity to deal in a timely fashion with the incremental increase in his workload?

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Does the right hon. Member agree that it is all well and good having oversight after the effect, but there is a real danger that the authority providing authorisation before the effect is the same authority that is doing the investigation? We all have systems of tunnel vision when we are in the middle of something and are unable to see the wider aspect, and independence at the pre-authorisation stage is really important.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Professional intent, although very laudable in certain circumstances, in this instance could well lead to unpredicted circumstances, and possibly most undesirable ones.
The Bill at present is ill defined and explained, with a focus trained on selected specific issues, and it risks undermining the trust upon which the public agencies tasked with our defence depends. Many, including the Front Benchers of Her Majesty’s Opposition, have said that that will be discussed on Report and in Committee. It is very important, and will evidently be significant when we are able to table amendments and discuss the Bill in detail. However, consideration is down for Thursday week. There will be a Thursday afternoon for Committee and all remaining stages. That is insufficient for the level of scrutiny that a Bill of this seriousness warrants. I beg the Government to consider whether, in all honesty, that is the impression that they wish to leave on the international stage, on which we hope to lead in the rules-based dimension in the future.

Maria Miller: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). She is absolutely  right that public confidence is a critical issue with regard to a Bill of this nature. I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have been listening very carefully to her remarks, and indeed those of everybody today. I sense that one or two Members’ contributions, perhaps including that of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), were not thought to have been much in alignment with everybody else’s. Well, I say all power to her for voicing her views, because it is important that the Government hear everybody’s views, whether or not they are consistent with what might be felt elsewhere.
Having listened very carefully to the debate, I think that, by and large, there is cross-party support for the proposed legislation, notwithstanding the specific issues that have been raised by hon. and right hon. Members throughout, particularly on issues of safeguards and oversight. That support stems from a clear understanding of the role of covert human intelligence sources in helping to keep safe us every day of the week—safe from those who scheme every day to take the lives of innocent British citizens in terrorist attacks like the one that we saw here in Parliament not so long ago.
This very narrowly focused Bill seeks to put on a statutory footing activities that frankly most of us would like never to know about—courageous work done by people who may never have the value of their work recognised publicly because of the security issues involved. The Bill gives those agents a more legally certain environment within which to operate and give more protection, through the safeguards, to those in broader society. In the past, activities that have involved breaches of the law, including belonging to a proscribed organisation, were undertaken on the basis of what appears to have been an implied power. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd talked about murky proceedings. I do not know whether that is the correct term, but it seemed to fit. The Bill removes any ambiguity and, in doing so, ensures that already strong procedures and oversight are more transparent and perhaps, hopefully, more understandable to everybody concerned.
We have heard some very learned analysis of the way that the Bill works from some very learned Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). I do not intend to compete with their many years of expertise, but I do want to look at some of the issues that are presented by the safeguards in the Bill.
It was important that my right hon. Friend the Minister put on the record some of the actions that have been undertaken by covert human intelligence sources in the past—actions that could never be sanctioned or authorised either in the past or, indeed, under this new legislation. Understandably, the debate has focused on safeguards to ensure that further such unauthorised behaviour is eliminated. The Bill and the code of practice set out very clear safeguards that, as other hon. Members have pointed out, are for the most part already in place and operational. However, the Bill puts in place a protocol and safeguards to put them on a statutory basis, be that authorisation from a trained and experienced officer, oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or accountability to the Intelligence and Security Committee under my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest  East (Dr Lewis), with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to investigate and determine complaints and grievances independent of Government and any Government organisations.
However, if these procedures are already in place, then I am concerned to hear from the Minister how we are going to make sure that they work better in future, because a number of issues raised in the debate require some further thought and response from the Government. Many are rightly concerned that in the past women have been sexually abused and even raped as part of covert operations. The Minister has been clear that these actions would never be sanctioned, either in the past or now, but regardless of the rules, reports of widespread involvement by officers in these sorts of very serious sexual assaults are concerning and have emerged. What will be done differently under this Bill to stop such blatant abuses happening in future?

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady agrees that the Bill is partly about enabling self-restraint, and therefore putting certain things that cannot be done into the Bill provides an understanding for officers so that it is clear, whereas a more general human rights approach could create the danger of it being less clear, just as in Canada or America.

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman could argue that point from completely the opposite side, because by in some way bringing into question whether this piece  of legislation will be treated like all other pieces of legislation—in other words, that a Minister will authorise it only if it is compliant, under the Human Rights Act, with sections of the European convention on human rights—I think he actually brings the whole thing into question; probably unintentionally, of course.
Going back to the point that I was making, what will be done differently? First, the Bill briefing note provides some detail on what might be done differently, but there is room for perhaps a little more, perhaps in Committee or beyond. The Bill provides detail on training for authorising officers about the way this new legislation would work, but absolutely no mention is made of training for the agents themselves. Given the problems of the past, can the Minister outline more fully what training agents receive on awareness, knowledge and expertise in the application of the Human Rights Act? I think many Members could do with some training on that at certain stages, because it is incredibly complex, and compliance with the European convention on human rights adds even more complexity.
Secondly, in 2016 the College of Policing published “Undercover policing: Authorised Professional Practice”, which is national guidance for officers. It would be helpful if the Minister updated the House on the status of that guidance, and whether any further operational guidance is envisaged for agents who will be under this new legislation. Covert human intelligence has an impact on many vulnerable people in society, and particularly women who may have had intimate sexual relations with undercover officers. Is the Minister reviewing the effectiveness of the way that policy impact is assessed to ensure that these sorts of blatant breaches are caught more quickly and, drawing on what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, caught right away, rather than at a point in the  future? The 70-page code of practice that accompanies the Bill is welcome, but perhaps a little unwieldy. How will the intent behind this Bill be turned into practice for agents on the ground?
Finally, if errors are made or agents do not follow the rules, there needs to be a clear and transparent pathway of redress for victims. What is that pathway for victims: what path would they follow under this legislation, and how is it different from what went before? All legislation we pass in this place is authorised by Ministers on the proviso that it accords with the provisions in the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights—this goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle)—but mention has been made of the defence used by the Government previously in apparently carving out the actions of agents as being separate from the rules applying to public authorities. We have heard an explanation of that already in the debate today, but I think more clarity on that would be helpful when we think about building confidence both within the Chamber and beyond.
In conclusion, I fully support the Bill before us today, and there is a great deal of merit in what the Government are attempting to do. I again pay tribute to all those in our security services who work to help keep us safe. This legislation will put on a firmer footing the protocols within which they work and the safeguards that are there to ensure those provisions work as we intend them to do, which is to bring criminals to justice. Governance, security and oversight will not diminish this Bill; they will strengthen it to give it the full confidence of this House and the people we represent.

Zarah Sultana: As I am making the final Back-Bench speech, I will not be taking any interventions—apologies.
On 12 February 1989, Pat Finucane, an Irish lawyer in Belfast, sat at his kitchen table to have dinner with his wife and three children. As they ate, two gunmen burst through the door, entered the room and shot Mr Finucane 14 times. He was killed by a loyalist paramilitary group that, as the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, admitted in 2012, was acting in complicity with British security services. Far from stopping Mr Finnigan’s murder, the Prime Minister described the
“shocking levels of state collusion”—[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 296]
in Mr Finucane’s murder. His family are still owed a public inquiry into the murder.
Deeply troubling acts of state agents such as those in the Finucane case are not isolated. In 2010, it came to light that for 40 years, Britain’s police had run covert operations spying on thousands of civilians. More than 1,000 political groups were spied on. Overwhelmingly, it was left-wing, anti-racist and climate justice groups that were spied on, with just three far-right groups included on the list. The spy cops revelations have shown that police operatives deceived women into sexual relationships and even spied on grieving families seeking justice, including the parents of Stephen Lawrence.
This Bill must be opposed. It places no limits on the crimes that state agents can be authorised to commit. It does not prohibit torture. It does not prohibit murder.  It does not prohibit sexual violence. Instead, all it requires is that authorising officers themselves believe that the conduct is appropriate, necessary by broadly defined criteria and meets requirements that may be imposed by an order made by the Secretary of State. Even the FBI expressly bans operatives from certain criminal conduct, but this Bill does not ban any type of criminal conduct for British state agents.
The grounds upon which the authorisations can be granted are ill-defined and wide-ranging. They include not only national security but “preventing disorder” and to promote
“the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”
That has rightly raised alarm bells for trade unions such as my union, Unite, and justice campaigns such as the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, who fear that these powers could be used to interfere with the legitimate activities of trade unions.
The Bill grants these powers to a dizzying array of agencies—not just intelligence agencies and the police, but the Competition and Markets Authority, the Gambling Commission and the Environment Agency, just to name a few. The oversight for authorisation of potentially serious crimes is scandalously weak. There are no provisions in the Bill for warrants or independent judicial approval. Instead, authorisation will be granted internally, which means that incredibly serious crimes could be authorised with less oversight than is currently required for phone tapping or police searches. As the human rights group Reprieve has noted, survivors of the spy cops scandal have sought justice through the courts for abuses they suffered, but this Bill will block future claims being brought forward, since it outlaws civil action against authorised activities. That is utterly unconscionable.
In the Bill’s defence, the Government claim that public authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act, and for that reason, the prohibition of crimes such as torture is guarded. In reality, that offers no protection against agent criminality, because in the Government’s view, the Human Rights Act does not apply to crimes committed by covert agents. The Government told the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in November 2019 that, in tasking agents, the state
“is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as responsible for it”.
According to the Government’s own standards, the Bill will therefore not place any limits on the crimes that agents could be authorised to commit—not on torture, not on murder and not on sexual violence.

Maria Miller: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Zarah Sultana: I must make progress.
This Bill marks the latest step in a frightening descent into authoritarianism by this Government. In the past two weeks, they have proposed the effective decriminalisation of torture by British soldiers overseas, the shipping of asylum seekers more than 4,000 miles away to be imprisoned on Ascension Island, the ban on anti-capitalist teaching materials in schools and now this—licensing undercover agents to commit torture, sexual violence and murder. This descent into authoritarianism should be a concern to us all. It must be resisted.

Conor McGinn: It is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of the Opposition. The serious and sombre tone of the debate, which is appropriate given the measures we are discussing, was set by the Security Minister and the shadow Home Secretary. The debate has been well informed and enhanced by the contribution of former Cabinet Ministers, particularly Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, who have a working knowledge of these matters, and also the former Attorney General and the Chairs of the Intelligence and Security Committee and Justice Committee.
As the Leader of the Opposition has made clear, security is a top priority for the Labour party under his leadership. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, we will be forceful and robust in supporting the fight against terrorism and crime in all its forms. We consider it our first responsibility to keep this country, its citizens and our communities safe. We will meet our duty to support those who put their own safety and lives at risk to protect us. We acknowledge and understand the purpose of this Bill, which seeks to put on a statutory footing the activity of those working to disrupt some of the most vile crimes imaginable, including terrorism, the activities of violent drug gangs, serious and organised crime, and child sexual exploitation.
We know that the threat from criminal and terrorist activity is very real and that the ability to gather intelligence is a vital tool in disrupting this activity, preventing further crime and bringing those responsible for it to justice. Since March 2017, the security services and counter-terror police have thwarted 27 terror attacks. In 2018, covert human intelligence sources helped to disrupt over 30 threats to life, leading to the arrest of numerous serious organised criminals and the seizure of more than 3,000 kilograms of class A drugs, and taking more than 50 firearms off the street.
During the course of those operations, it is inevitable that agents will at times transgress existing laws in a limited way. This activity has been happening for a long time. It is not always comfortable for us in this House to think about what we need people to do to protect us and prevent harm coming to us, but real life is not a film. There is no Superman, it is not a fairy tale and there is not always a happy ending. That is why it is a step forward that this activity will now be properly covered by statute and open to greater transparency, accountability, regulation and safeguarding in a way that it has not been before.
We are told that under this legislation covert human intelligence sources will not be given carte blanche—the Minister made that very clear. It is therefore absolutely vital that during the passage of the Bill we get those safeguards and the processes and structures for accountability and proportionality absolutely right, both for the maintenance of our country’s hard-won civil liberties and human rights and for the protection of those who undertake such activity, as my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) outlined so eloquently.
The Bill is certified as compliant with the Human Rights Act, as the Minister set out. All public authorities are bound by it to act in a way that is compatible with the rights protected by the European convention on  human rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Human Rights Act is specifically mentioned in the Bill, providing important and necessary protection. However, it is right that during the Bill’s progress we will be pressing the Government on safeguards as to what acts can be carried out. I therefore take this opportunity to let the Government know, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) have, about those areas where we believe the Bill requires scrutiny and can be strengthened on its journey.
We need to explore in greater detail how we might get closer to the specifics of what offences can be allowed, as has been done in, for example, Canada and indeed the United States. There is nothing in the Bill to limit or specify the kinds of offences covered, only that they are to be necessary and proportionate. Despite the fact that the Human Rights Act is applicable in all circumstances, we will be pressing the Minister for an understanding as to why offences such as murder, torture and sexual violence are not explicitly ruled out in this legislation.
Moreover, the Bill certifies that an authorisation may be given only if it is deemed necessary
“in the interests of national security…for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; or…in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”
These are broad statements that could have wide-ranging interpretations, particularly the last of the three, by a large list of agencies. We want to explore some of that and will press for assurances.
We also want to look at levels of accountability and sign-off for authorisation. As the Bill stands, the use of such powers will be overseen by the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who can report on an annual basis. We believe the Bill needs to go further and that each and every authorisation should be notified to the commissioner in real time, so that scrutiny can be robust and ongoing. I also welcome indications from the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee that they too will seek to bring forward safeguards in that respect through amendments.

John Hayes: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments and, indeed, the tone of his contribution, but he must surely acknowledge that being very specific about what covert agents can and cannot do would expose them to great risk, for those they infiltrate would know what their parameters of activity are likely to be.

Conor McGinn: The right hon Gentleman makes a very fair point. I completely appreciate that and have taken into account the comments that have been made by Ministers and those with experience of this, but I just seek simply to see whether there is a way that we can add more reassurance for people around some of the specificity of these matters without exposing people to the dangers that have been rightly outlined.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Conor McGinn: My hon. Friend is doing very well. He has been in the Chamber for only 20 minutes and this is his third intervention, but I will, of course, give way to him.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I did apply to speak, but I was refused by the Speaker’s Office, so I have been listening to the debate in my office.
Would it not be better if we took a Canadian or even an American model, where there are some things that are excluded from the scope of actions? This idea of testing does not seem to cause problems for the Canadians or the Americans.

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he had been refused permission to speak by the Speaker’s Office, but if he had submitted his name in time, he would have been on the list, so I do not quite understand. Perhaps he would like to come and see me and explain exactly what happened.

Conor McGinn: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not mean to start a discussion with the Speaker’s Office. My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is why I specifically referenced Canada and the United States in terms of the model that we would probe.
I wish to make some progress now and draw to a conclusion. We also have concerns over the potential use of these powers in relation to retrospective action. It says that approval will be sought as soon as it is practically possible. Our view is that there should be a time limit on that, and we would look to a period of around a month. I am happy to discuss this with the Minister as there does need to be some sort of a hard deadline on retrospective authority. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent retrospective action, which could see it being abused. Where there are allegations of historical injustices involving law enforcement and the security services, justice must take its course and the Bill cannot interfere with that.
We will also be carefully scrutinising the number and nature of the public agencies approved for this activity, which was a point very well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). These are serious powers—granting the ability for an individual to break the law—so there must be a clear and substantial case for the many agencies listed in the Bill. We also want assurances that the powers are not to be used to undermine the legitimate activities of trade unions, civil society groups or campaigns. Opposition Members are very clear that there can be no repeat of the historical attitudes and, frankly, the moral and legal corruptions that led to workers being blacklisted,  to political interference or, indeed, to inappropriate relationships as the Spycops inquiry will examine. Similarly, it must also be the case that victims who have been wronged are not inadvertently prevented from seeking adequate forms of redress or fair compensation. On the issue of trade unions specifically, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which is the only legal basis for the use of powers to obtain communications, specifies that the monitoring of trade unions is not grounds for such activity, so will the Solicitor-General assure the House—if he cannot do it now, perhaps he might write to me if he would be so good—that nothing in this Bill changes that? Furthermore, the process of blacklisting trade unionists has been unlawful since 2010, with the passing of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, and, again, will he confirm that nothing in this Bill would affect that?
I want to turn briefly to the issue of legacy in Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that this Bill in no way impinges on or affects that process. I urge the Treasury Bench to take into account the comments that were made both by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). Let me say this: I know Pat Finucane’s wife, Geraldine, and I know her sons John and Michael and her family. For 10 years, before I came into the House and since I have been in the House, I have steadfastly admired and supported them in their quest for justice, and that is not something that I will resile from at this Dispatch Box now. Let me also say that I do not need to be convinced about the consequences of the state exceeding its power in this arena. I do not need to read a briefing about it. I do not need to hear it in a meeting because I and the community in which I grew up lived with the consequences of it, which is why we need to get this right.
In summary, we on the Opposition side of the House understand the importance of this Bill. I have set out the areas of concern that we have, and where we would like to see the Bill strengthened, we will work with the Government constructively to try to do so robustly and effectively. This legislation puts existing practice on a clear and consistent statutory footing. It acknowledges the need for the role of covert human intelligence sources and, above all else, it must keep the public safe. I believe that security and human rights are not incompatible, but co-dependent, and that will govern the approach that I take as this Bill proceeds through the House.

Michael Ellis: Let me start by thanking colleagues across the House for the constructive way in which Members have approached today’s debate. I think we all agree that national security and preventing serious crime is an area in which we want to ensure that operational agencies are best equipped to protect us and keep us safe, and this Bill does just that. It is in that spirit that we have engaged many Members in advance of this debate, and I can assure Members that we will look to continue to work together as the Bill passes through Parliament.
If I may, I will respond briefly to some of the points made during the debate. My right hon. Friend the Security Minister has already responded to a number of interventions, but turning first to safeguards and oversight, I agree with those colleagues who have emphasised the importance of ensuring that there is robust oversight of the use of criminal conduct authorisations, or CCAs. That is why we have a world-leading investigatory powers regime, and it is why there is significant, independent oversight of the use of those powers; few other countries in the world, if any, have such a regime. With regards to safeguards within the public authority, all authorising officers are highly trained. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) spoke about training a few moments ago, and I can say that these officers are experienced and have clear and detailed guidance that they must follow in deciding whether to grant an authorisation for criminal conduct.
In response to the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), let me confirm that the code of practice  sets out that there does need to be a reasonable belief that an authorisation is necessary and proportionate. All authorising officers must be appropriately trained, and the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner can identify if any public body is failing to train their officers or assess them to a sufficiently high standard. To respond specifically to the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), I can confirm that an authorisation must be granted before activity commences. The Bill does not seek to enable the retrospective granting of a criminal conduct authorisation; this is not a retrospective Bill.
I turn now to independent oversight. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner is entirely independent of Her Majesty’s Government and has wide-ranging powers to support his crucial oversight functions, which include the ability to inspect all the public authorities able to grant a criminal conduct authorisation at a frequency of his choosing. Public authorities are required to provide unfettered access to all of their documents and information, and the results of those inspections are published within his annual report. A public authority must then take steps to implement any recommendations made by the IPC. This Bill looks to provide robust independent oversight, while ensuring that such oversight does not result in a loss of operational effectiveness. Authorisations may need to be granted at short notice, and here I want to emphasise the human element of CHIS, unlike other investigatory powers. That human element means that these decisions cannot really be retaken; they impact directly on the safety and welfare of covert human intelligence sources.

John Hayes: While dealing with safeguards and scrutiny, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the tribunal has the ability to deal with any complaints about inappropriate use of these powers? Furthermore, will he do as I did when I took the Act through the House and give an absolute assurance that this will not be applied to civil society organisations, including trade unions?

Michael Ellis: Yes I can, and I will come to that point in a moment.
I have been listening to the views expressed in the debate by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam and the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) that providing the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with more real-time oversight would strengthen that oversight. We have always been clear that we are willing to engage with workable proposals; I understand the spirit in which these remarks were made and I am listening carefully.
I thank the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee for their support for the Bill and recognise the important role they play in providing oversight of our intelligence agencies. The Committee’s oversight role is complemented by the work of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who is tasked with providing information on public authorities’ use of the power.
The shadow Home Secretary made a specific  point regarding the disproportionate impact on women or members of the BME community. Those under investigation are targeted because of their criminal or terrorist activities, not on the basis of such characteristics.  If there are any specific concerns, I am of course happy to discuss them further, but I can confirm that that is the case.
Regarding limits, I understand the concerns expressed by colleagues around the House, but let me be clear: covert human intelligence sources will never be provided with unlimited authority to commit all or any crime. They will never be provided with an authorisation that is contrary to our obligations under the Human Rights Act. The Bill makes that specifically clear. This is not a “licence to kill” Bill. An authorisation is tightly bound: it must be necessary, and it must be proportionate to the activity it seeks to prevent.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and others set out, creating a specific list of prohibited activity, were we to do that, would place into the hands of criminals, terrorists and hostile states the means to create a checklist against which suspected covert human intelligence sources could be tested. That would threaten the future of CHIS capability and consequently increase the threat to the public. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has wide-ranging powers to ensure that the requirements of the legislation, which have been clearly set out in the House today, are adhered to.
Let me deal with some international comparisons. Different countries have different legal systems, threat pictures and operational practices; simply comparing legislation, therefore, gives only a partial picture. However, with regard specifically to Canada—our strong ally, which has been mentioned a number of times this evening—our understanding is that the parts of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to which Members have referred do not actually relate to covert human intelligence sources. The specifics of what a CHIS may be tasked by the agency to do in Canada—the information some say is contained in the Canadian Act—is not on the face of their legislation. That is our understanding.
Regarding the point made about trade unions, economic wellbeing is of course one of the established statutory purposes for which the covert investigatory powers may be deployed by public authorities. That is to recognise the threats to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom and that they could be immensely damaging and fundamental in their effect. For example, such threats may include the possibility of a hostile cyber-attack against our critical infrastructure, our financial institutions or the Government itself. However, it is not the intention in the Bill to prevent legitimate and lawful activity, including activity by trade union organisations. Preventing such activity would not be necessary for the purpose of economic wellbeing. Trade unions have historically been a bastion of rights in this country and they are, of course, a lawful authority.
In response to concerns about the Bill’s impact on potential victims’ ability to seek compensation, it is not the intention of the Bill to affect any individual’s ability to pursue a claim for compensation where appropriate. It is not the case that any or all conduct by a CHIS could be exempted from civil liability under the Bill regime.
Finally, I have heard several Members, including the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), question the need for wider public authorities to have  the power. These public authorities have important investigative and enforcement responsibilities. It is right that they are given the necessary powers to undertake these functions themselves. Very briefly, I could perhaps give an example to do with the Food Standards Agency, which has been mentioned a number of times.
The Food Standards Agency is tasked with protecting consumers and the food industry from food crime within food supply chains. Examples of food crime include the use of stolen food in the supply chain, the unlawful slaughter of animals, the diversion of unsafe food not fit for human consumption, adulteration of foodstuffs, substitution or misrepresentation of foodstuffs, and document fraud. The continuing presence of an individual within a workplace may necessitate them actively participating in presenting, packaging and relabelling produce in order to misrepresent its quality and fitness for consumption, which would be criminal offences. As I say, all public authorities will be subject to the same robust safeguards and oversight and it is right that we equip them all with the powers they need to protect us.
In closing, we should not underestimate the immense contribution that covert human intelligence sources have made, and continue to make, to protecting the public and this country. We can never publicly set out the exact details of what they do on our behalf, but let me assure hon. and right hon. Members that without them lives would have been lost. They are exceptional people, courageous and devoted, and we are all grateful to them. It is right that covert human intelligence sources, their handlers and the public authorities to whom the Bill relates have the certainty and clarity to continue to use this tactic. It is also right, however, that this is subject to robust safeguards and independent oversight. This legislation will achieve both those things and ensure we can continue to bring to justice those who want to do us harm.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 20.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)

Ordered,
That:
(1) the Resolution of the House of 16 January 2020 (Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)), as amended by the Orders of the House of 25 March, 22 April, 12 May, 10 June and   1 July 2020 (Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)), is further amended as follows:
leave out “30 October 2020” and insert “6 November 2020”
(2) the Orders for Second Reading of Bills on the day listed under Day 1 in the table below are read and discharged;
(3) each such Bill is ordered to be read a second time on the corresponding day listed under Day 2 in the table; and
(4) those Bills are set down to be read a second time on the appropriate Day 2 in the order in which they were set down to be read a second time on the corresponding Day 1.

  

  Day 1
  Day 2


  30 October 2020
  6 November 2020

  

—(James Morris.)

Adjournment (October)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
That this House, at its rising on Friday 23 October, do adjourn until Monday 2 November.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5, 6, 7 and 8 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Insolvency

That the Insolvency (Moratorium) (Special Administration for Energy Licensees) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 943), dated 2 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 September, be approved.

Charities

That the Charitable Incorporated Organisations (Insolvency and Dissolution) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 856), dated 12 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 August, be approved.

Education

That the draft Apprenticeships (Alternative English Completion Conditions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 10 September, be approved.

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Bolton) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 974), dated 10 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 September, be approved.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.

Future Relationship with the European Union

Ordered,
That Mark Fletcher be discharged from the Future Relationship with the European Union Committee and Lee Anderson be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

Lee Anderson: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this Adjournment debate on an issue that is of great importance to my constituents. We have a brilliant judicial system in our country—it is the envy of the world—and we get it right most of the time. However, sometimes we get it wrong when it comes to sentencing. The good news is that we have the unduly lenient sentence scheme, a highly successful scheme that allows sentences for certain offences that are unduly lenient to be referred to the Attorney General and, subsequently, the Court of Appeal, to hopefully get the sentences of some of the worst criminals in our society increased.
It is right that the most serious offenders, including those who have committed violent and sexual offences, should spend more time in prison to match the severity of their crimes. The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government he leads will strengthen public confidence in the criminal justice system, and on behalf of the residents of Ashfield and Eastwood, I will support legislation designed to achieve that.
Legislation was recently introduced in Parliament to abolish automatic halfway release for serious offenders who receive standard fixed-term sentences of seven years or more. That includes those found guilty of rape, manslaughter or grievous bodily harm with intent. Instead, a new requirement to serve two thirds of a sentence in prison was introduced, with the existing strict licence conditions on release continuing. That action means that around 2,000 serious offenders will spend longer in custody, keeping the public safe—and rightly so.

John Hayes: With the permission of my hon. Friend, which I sought in advance, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether he agrees with me that the Government also need to tackle the vexatious liberal bourgeois lawyers who try to get the thugs, villains and crooks that he describes—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

Lee Anderson: I welcome the fact that this Government want to go further as part of their determination to protect the public from serious offenders.
The Government have published a sentencing White Paper, which represents the largest reform to sentencing for almost 20 years. Victims will have the power to query sentences for a wider range of crimes, as the scheme has been extended to cover 14 new offences, including stalking, harassment, child sex abuse and other sex offences.
The priority of Government is the safety and security of their citizens. However, the system of sentencing in England and Wales does not always command the confidence of the public. Public protection is a key  principle of sentencing, yet all too often we see cases of offending where serious sexual and violent offenders are not receiving sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes.
The passing of correct sentencing is crucial, and based on the right legislation and procedure, it will bring increased public confidence. However, despite the Government’s extension of the scheme in recent years, which has been strongly welcomed in Ashfield and Eastwood, my constituents are still concerned that not enough crimes are included on the scheme’s eligibility list. The extension of the scheme will keep offenders who pose a risk to the public off the streets for longer and help restore public confidence that robust sentences are executed in a way that better reflects the gravity of the crimes committed.
In previous years, we have seen the scheme work well and become increasingly popular. In November 2017, the Solicitor General noted that the number of sentences considered by the Attorney General’s office had more than doubled between 2010 and 2016, from 342 to 837. The Attorney General said that the 833 referrals received by his office in 2016 were a 17% increase from the previous year.

Bambos Charalambous: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are strict deadlines for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which sometimes mean that a victim or member of a victim’s family who wishes to challenge a sentence is unable to do so because they have not received proper advice? I have the case of Tracey Hanson, whose son Josh Hanson was brutally murdered. She applied in the 28 days but was past the office-hours deadline, so she was not able to challenge the sentence. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need for better advice for victims beforehand so that they can challenge sentences properly and be aware of their rights?

Lee Anderson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I totally agree that more advice should be readily available for the victims of these horrid crimes.
The scheme has seen many recent successes, including in relation to a 28-year-old male from Leeds who was found guilty of rape in 2019. This abhorrent individual was originally sentenced to 14 years and six months’ imprisonment. After the sentence was reviewed as too lenient, it was altered to 18 years, with an extended licence of eight years—that is an extra four years for this vile criminal to reflect on his wicked crime and four more years that he is off our streets.
My constituents in Ashfield and Eastwood are delighted with results such as that, particularly when they see first hand the effectiveness of the scheme in reviewing sentences closer to home. Eighteen-year-old Edi Gomes of Nottinghamshire was convicted of a city centre stabbing and originally sentenced at Nottingham Crown court in May 2019 to 240 hours of unpaid worked. Most of the time, our justice system gets things completely right,  but the example of Gomes shows that there are cases that need to be reviewed. He got 240 hours of unpaid work, but a violent offence as serious as wounding  with intent and possessing a bladed article warrants a custodial sentence.

Andy Carter: My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Does he agree that it is not just about the sentence but about the charges in the first place? It is critical that the Crown Prosecution Service matches the right crime with the right charges. For example, the CPS often prefers to charge an assault at a lower level, which means it is likely to be dealt with in a magistrates court and result in a lower sentence, because in the opinions of some in the CPS there is more likely to be a conviction as a result. The cases therefore never get to the Crown Court, where they really need to be.

Lee Anderson: My hon. Friend is quite right: sometimes it is the easy option to put a case through a magistrates court rather than a Crown court. I completely agree, and I want our judiciary system to take the harder option in future to ensure that such vile crimes are put through the Crown court and result in the maximum sentence possible.

Jonathan Gullis: My hon. Friend is one of the soundest voices in this House who entered in 2019. He is a true champion for the now “blue wall”, as it is dubbed. In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, we had an example of a young man who was brutally stabbed, along with a cyclist who was passing by. The young man who stabbed them received only a three-year sentence with the promise of an 18-month release. My hon. Friend referred to a case in his area where knife crime was not being handled seriously. Does he agree that, if we are to tackle the scourge of knife crime, the sentence must fit the crime?

Lee Anderson: I completely agree once again that the sentence must fit the crime. The unduly lenient sentence scheme is tailored for such incidents, and I hope that it has been referred to the Attorney General.
Edi Gomes in Nottinghamshire was sentenced to 240 hours of unpaid work and was then back out on the streets. That is not justice for the victim, and it sends out the wrong message to the public and our police. I was therefore delighted to hear that the case was referred to the Attorney General, whose office agreed that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal under the scheme, which ruled that his previous non-custodial sentence was too lenient and that he should be locked up. Following the review, Gomes was sentenced to 18 months in custody.
To have a long-term impact on reducing knife crime, it is essential that the police, the justice system and communities take a stand together. The custodial sentencing decision sends the right message to those who carry and use knives in Nottinghamshire and across the country. The scheme sends a message to the general public that the Government will do whatever it takes to ensure that the people who commit these offences face the full consequences of their actions.
My constituents were further encouraged by the effectiveness of the scheme when, in 2018, two Nottinghamshire drug dealers were jailed over the importation of more than £65 million-worth of cocaine and heroin and handed 16-year custodial sentences. More than 142 kilos of drugs were seized at the helm of the two men, and with their sentences ruled too lenient  they each received an extra three years on top of their original sentences. Those men deserve nothing less than 19 years’ imprisonment.
I appeal to the Attorney General to consider extending the scheme to ensure that all crimes where someone has died are eligible for review. Although death by dangerous driving is covered by the unduly lenient sentence scheme, death by careless driving is not. It is my belief that if a crime involves a death, that should be a triggering factor in deciding whether it is serious enough to be reviewed.
There has been some success with the scheme in terms of sexual offences, with the recent example of school bus driver Robert Woolner, who took photos  of young girls leaving his bus and was found guilty of attempting to arrange a child sex offence. He will now be imprisoned for longer after his sentence was reviewed under the scheme. Woolner was arrested after he was caught communicating and discussing oral sex with a person whom he thought was a 13-year-old boy. The boy was in fact an undercover police officer, and the offender was arrested in the place where they had arranged to meet. Police then found extreme pornographic content on Woolner’s phone, as well as three videos made during his employment as a school bus driver showing under the skirts of schoolgirls as they left the school bus.
On 17 July, Woolner was originally sentenced at St Albans Crown Court to 12 months’ imprisonment for attempting to arrange or facilitate a child sex offence, possessing extreme pornographic images and multiple counts of recording an image under clothing. Following the Solicitor General’s intervention, the Court of Appeal increased his sentence to two years and six months’ imprisonment. An individual such as Robert Woolner, who is evidently extremely dangerous, shows us exactly why this scheme is necessary.
The Government must continue to work to fulfil our manifesto commitments to bring in tougher sentences. A more efficient approach to sentencing will grow confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to deal effectively with the worst offenders and protect citizens. No one should feel unsafe walking our streets, so I look to the Minister with great optimism and belief that this Government will take the approach I have outlined and seriously consider extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme to cover more sentences. Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance, on behalf of the people of Ashfield and Eastwood, to put this debate to this House.

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I bring in the Minister, I just wanted to explain that when the Adjournment debate starts before 10 o’clock, we have to move the motion again. That is why I had to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I hope I did not put him off his stride—it does not sound as though I did.

Michael Ellis: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents and for securing this debate on this important topic. It says a good deal about him that his chosen topic has secured the attendance of so many of our hon. Friends and hon. Members for this Adjournment debate.
I join my hon. Friend in recognising, as he did in his opening comments, our brilliant judiciary. They are rightly renowned the world over for their intellectual brilliance and integrity. I also agree with him about the importance of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. It is a vital feature of our criminal justice system that the Court of Appeal has the ability, and has had for some 30 years, to intervene in the small but important number of cases where sentencing judges get it wrong. Since its introduction more than 30 years ago, the scheme has allowed prosecutors, victims, family members and the general public—in fact, anyone at all— to seek a review by the Law Officers, which means by myself or by the Attorney General, of sentences in the most serious cases that they consider to be unduly lenient.
We have some 80,000 criminal cases in this country per annum, and I wish to be clear that in the vast majority of them—more than 99%—sentencing judges get it right. However, the ULS scheme remains an important safety mechanism to rectify errors in sentencing and to ensure that justice is done in individual cases. As I have said, the number of sentences found to be unduly lenient continues to be a very small proportion, but the number of cases considered by my office has grown significantly, In 2010, 342 sentences were considered by my office, whereas in 2019 that had increased to 577. The Law Officers referred 93 cases to the Court of Appeal, which led to a sentence increase in 63 of those cases.
As my hon. Friend knows, this Government are fully committed to ensuring that justice is done for victims of crime, and the ULS scheme is an important part of that. He proposes an extension of the scheme to cover more sexual offences and crimes where someone has died. Of course, these are clearly serious offences and they are often traumatising crimes for victims and their families, and it is right that they deserve serious and careful consideration by the criminal justice system. He specifically mentioned that the offence of causing death by careless driving is not within the scheme. Two key principles apply to sentencing: the harm caused by a crime and the culpability. In terms of harm, that offence involves the most serious consequence—a death. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that I recognise this, and it is not something we take lightly at all. In terms of culpability, there is an important distinction between dangerous and careless driving, and the sentencing regime reflects that. Sometimes the consequences of a collision may be entirely disproportionate to the culpability of the offender. A relatively minor action by a driver or a single moment of inattention may have horrendous and tragic consequences. That, of course, does not change the fact that the consequences of these cases are dire and devastating for families.
The intention of the ULS scheme is that it is reserved for the most serious cases. That being said, the remit of any extension to the ULS scheme lies with the Ministry of Justice, and the scheme has been extended in recent times. It now covers all cases that are triable only in the Crown court. As well as other serious offences, it covers murder, manslaughter, rape, child sex offences, drug dealing, racially and religiously aggravated crimes, arson, criminal damage and terrorism offences.
Following manifesto commitments by this Government and a further commitment in the 2018 victims strategy, in November 2019 the Government extended the scheme to 14 further offences including stalking, harassment, coercive and controlling behaviour and additional child sexual offences, particularly those involving indecent images of children and abusing a position of trust with a child. I am sure that my hon. Friend and Members across the House will agree that including those horrific and critically damaging offences in the scheme was an important step to take. Those abhorrent crimes carry a distressing and long-lasting impact, and it is our duty to hold perpetrators of the most horrific and serious offences to account.
We have successfully referred cases under the extended scheme to the Court of Appeal. I have done so, including in person. That includes the particularly horrific case of Haitch Macklin, who was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment for offences of making indecent images of children. That case involved no fewer than 2,196 indecent photographs and videos in which young children were horrifically abused. I referred the case to the Court of Appeal, and the sentence was increased from 20 months’ imprisonment to four years’ imprisonment.
Every case referred to my office that falls within the scheme is carefully considered by either myself or the Attorney General, and I take great pride in the scheme and the justice that it delivers to victims and their families. I personally present cases in court wherever I can. I presented the reference in the case of Joshua Dalgarno. Dalgarno was an offender who met his former partner on a dating website. He inflicted a range of domestic abuse on her between June and September 2019. The offending comprised a number of violent attacks, obsessive and controlling contact by telephone, controlling the contact the victim had with others, monitoring her telephone and social media contact with others and taking her car. The abuse even continued after the offender’s arrest. Having been released on bail, he threatened the victim and her sister on another occasion, and he had a history of violent offending against his former partners. The offender was originally given a community sentence for an offence of controlling and coercive behaviour. The Court of Appeal agreed with my submission that the sentence was unduly lenient and increased it to three years’ imprisonment.
It is vital that, in cases such as these, abusers are truly brought to justice and victims and the public are afforded protection against further abuse. That is why the ULS scheme is so essential, to ensure that perpetrators of the most serious crimes who inflict violence and psychological abuse on their victims are held accountable.
As well as correcting sentencing errors, the ULS scheme contributes to clarifying the law, recently in the area of so-called one-punch manslaughter and in cases in which offenders believe that they are arranging sexual contact with a child but are in fact speaking with undercover police officers—we are seeing a fair few such cases. The Court of Appeal agreed with my submissions in the cases of Barney Coyle and Michael Taiwo. Those horrific but unconnected cases involved the all too often seen scenario in which, sadly, a punch thrown in the heat of the moment resulted in the death of another human being. The ULS references for  both cases led the Court of Appeal to clarify that, notwithstanding that an offender may not intend to kill,  the culpability of the offender means that such offences can be of such seriousness that judges need to sentence within the higher categories of the sentencing guidelines.
The cases of Kyle Edwards and Michael Dawson involved the offenders arranging or facilitating the commission of child sex offences. Both offenders believed that they were speaking with children; however, they were speaking with undercover police officers. I referred both cases on the basis that I concluded that the sentences were unduly lenient in and of themselves, but it was also clear that the application of sentencing law in the area could benefit from clarification. Notwithstanding that the offences do not actually involve a real child, sentences must sometimes—in fact, always—look at the culpability of the offender, too: what did they intend to do if they met the child? The Court of Appeal agreed with that submission and further emphasised the appropriate approach to sentencing in these cases.
I will touch briefly on public awareness. My hon. Friend is right that awareness of the scheme is vital. We receive a volume of referrals from victims and the wider public that indicate that they are aware in principle, but I know that we can do more. The Ministry of Justice is in the process of revising the victims code to address its complexity and give victims more clarity on their rights. My hon. Friend also referred to the sentencing White Paper; as he correctly stated, the priority of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. It is also the Government’s role to provide the right sentencing framework for judges to follow. The ULS scheme is, of course, focused on how judges apply the law and the Sentencing Council guidelines as they stand; it is Parliament that decides the legal framework in which they operate.
My hon. Friend is right that the system of sentencing in England and Wales sometimes does not command the confidence of the general public at large. That is why I am grateful to him for the opportunity this evening to highlight not only the ULS scheme, which I believe commands the confidence of the public, but the measures that the Government and the Ministry of Justice will take to tackle sentencing on a wider scale. The Government will legislate on the measures in the sentencing White Paper in the near future. That legislation will include measures targeted at certain serious violent and sexual offenders so that they will serve two thirds of their sentence in custody, rather than being released automatically at the halfway point.
In conclusion, I am immensely proud of my involvement with the unduly lenient sentencing scheme and the justice that it brings for victims of some of the most horrific crimes. We can only refer cases that appear to us as Law Officers to be unduly lenient, but we will, and  do, take the utmost care in that assessment. We frequently receive positive feedback from victims and their families where sentences of offenders are increased; I must say that it can be quite moving when we receive letters and the like from those who have been bereaved, for example, and who are grateful that the case has been reviewed by the Law Officers and referred to the Court of Appeal. However, the scheme is kept under constant review, and I understand that a case may be made that further individual offences or categories of cases merit inclusion.
It is important that there is finality in sentencing for both victims and defendants. Parliament intended this to be an exceptional power, and it is important that any extension is considered carefully. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to carefully review every sentence referred to my office that is within the scheme. The Attorney General and I will listen to any representations made regarding extending and improving the scheme.

Bambos Charalambous: On the point about improving the scheme, the Solicitor General mentioned awareness as an issue. He also mentioned the victims code coming up soon, but can he enlighten me as to whether he envisages there being greater awareness for victims and their families of the existence of the scheme? Many of them are not aware and do not know about it, so they cannot bring cases to his attention.

Michael Ellis: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is right, and we are doing everything we can to make the existence of the scheme more generally known by victims and their families. We are in liaison with the Crown Prosecution Service about how that is done. The victims code should help in that regard. We are seeing a major increase in the number of cases being referred to me and the Attorney General, so the scheme is clearly getting through to a certain extent, but there is more to be done.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield for raising the ULS scheme on behalf of his constituents, whom he powerfully and ably represents. I hope I have reassured him that we as Law Officers take very seriously our role in the scheme. I am pleased to be able to highlight some of the recent successes we have had, which have led to violent and sexual offenders being given sentences they deserve and helped to bring about justice for their victims.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting)
  Chris Elmore


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
  Chris Elmore


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire)
  Patrick Grady


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife)
  Patrick Grady


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde)
  Patrick Grady


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow)
  Chris Elmore


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford)
  Caroline Nokes


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East)
  Chris Elmore


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West)
  Chris Evans


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd)
  Chris Elmore


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk)
  Patrick Grady


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire)
  Patrick Grady


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Dowd (Bootle)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow)
  Jeremy Hunt


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover)
  Maria Caulfield


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw)
  Patrick Grady


  Colleen Fletcher (South Ribble)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk)
  Bim Afolami


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet)
  Caroline Nokes


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden)
  Steve Baker


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran)
  Patrick Grady


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West)
  Chris Elmore


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish)
  Chris Elmore


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East)
  Chris Elmore


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
  Patrick Grady


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
  Patrick Grady


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset)
  Fay Jones


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn)
  Chris Elmore


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham)
  Maria Caulfield


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich)
  Dehenna Davison


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East)
  Mohammad Yasin


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central)
  Chris Elmore


  Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
  Chris Elmore


  Marcus Jones (Nuneaton)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West)
  Chris Elmore


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck)
  Kate Osborne


  Chris Law (Dundee West)
  Patrick Grady


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South)
  Lloyd Russell-Moyle


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
  Patrick Grady


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough)
  Chris Elmore


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)
  Zarah Sultana


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South)
  Patrick Grady


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East)
  Patrick Grady


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East)
  Patrick Grady


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk)
  Patrick Grady


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Menzies (Fylde)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North)
  Chris Elmore


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Patrick Grady


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North)
  Chris Elmore


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
  Patrick Grady


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon)
  Rebecca Harris


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute)
  Patrick Grady


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton)
  Nadia Whittome


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead)
  Stuart Andrew


  Toby Perkins
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)
  Peter Aldous


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford)
  Rebecca Harris


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)
  Chris Elmore


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alyn Smith (Stirling)
  Patrick Grady


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mel Stride (Central Devon)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth)
  Ian Byrne


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire)
  Patrick Grady


  Hywel Williams (Arfon)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley)
  Nadia Whittome